Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD ASHRAF VS Respondent: HAFEEZ AHMADHonorable Justice CH. IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN
2003 M L D 1841
2003 M L D 1841
[Lahore]
Before Ijaz Ahmad Chaudhry and Ch. Iftikhar Hussain, JJ
MUHAMMAD ASHRAF---Petitioner
Versus
HAFEEZ AHMAD and 2 others---Respondents
Criminal Revision No. 139 of 1991, heard on 21st May, 2003.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----Ss.403/435/439---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302/34---Revision against acquittal---Accused were acquitted in the case under S.302/34, P.P.C. by giving them benefit of doubt---Complainant filed private complaint against accused after acquittal, in respect of the same offence---Accused were tried in the said complaint case and were acquitted by the Trial Court with the observation that according to S.403, Cr.P.C. accused could not be tried twice for the same offence-- Validity---Accused having been once tried and acquitted could not be tried again for the same offence on a private complaint in view of S.403, Cr.P.C.
Malik Muhammad Shabbir Langrial for Petitioner.
Ch. Mahmood Akhtar Ghuman and Ayyaz Ahmad Ch. for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
Tariq Murtaza Malazai for the State.
Date of hearing: 21st May, 2003.
JUDGMENT
CH. IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN, J.---Muhammad Ashraf, petitioner has brought the instant revision petition challenging the acquittal of respondents Nos.1 and 2 in case F.I.R. No.40 of 1986, under section 302/34, P.P.C., registered with Police Station, Mitroo District, Vehari vide the judgment dated 30-5-1991 recorded by Ch. Muhammad Iqbal Naru, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vehari.
2. Briefly the facts relevant for the disposal of the same are that the said case was got registered by the petitioner in respect of the murder of his deceased brother Muhammad Aslam Khan. He had accused respondents Nos. 1 and 2 for the same. The said case was found false by the police and report for the discharge of these respondents was prepared in the same. The petitioner thus filed private complaint against 'them in respect of the same.
3. These respondents/accused were tried for offence under section 302/34, P.P.C. in the same and ultimately acquitted vide the judgment of the same date by the said learned Additional Sessions Judge by giving them the benefit of doubt. He had observed that according to section 403, Cr.P.C. they could be tried again for the same offence.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
5. There is no denying the fact that respondents Nos. 1 and 2 were tried on the same charge in the private complaint brought by the petitioner and they ultimately were acquitted in the same by giving them the benefit of doubt. So they could not again be tried for the same offence in view of the provisions of section 403, Cr.P.C.
6. The said observation of the learned trial Court in this regard, therefore, is correct. The instant revision petition, thus has no substance and the same is dismissed as such.
H.B.T./M-2021/L Revision dismissed.