' IBAD-UR-REHMAN LODHI, J.---The legality of findings arrived at by the learned Judge Accountability Court No, V, Lahore in order dated 9-4-2012 whereby the application moved by the present petitioners under Article 13 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 read with section 403, Cr.P.C. And section 17 of National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999 was dismissed in questioned through present petition.
2. The background relevant for the purpose of disposal of present petition is that in Reference No,11 of 2003, the petitioners were charge sheeted on 23-5-2007 for providing aid and abetting by active assistance to the co-accused Rasheed Ahmad, Patwari in accumulation of property/assets in his own name and in the names of the petitioners as beneficiaries which were disproportionate to his known sources of income and thus the present petitioners were also charged for an offence punishable under section 9(a)(xii) of National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999. The charge was amended on 4-11-2007 by providing the details of the properties of accused Rasheed Ahmad but to the extent of present petitioners, who were arrayed as accused Nos. 2 and 3 in the Reference, the charge was same as was originally framed.
3. The petitioners through an independent application sought their acquittal within the meaning of section 265-K, Cr.P.C. And the learned Judge Accountability Court on 7-4-2010 proceeded to dismiss said application. Such dismissal was challenged by the petitioners by means of Writ Petition No, 7355 of 2010 which was finally decided by learned Division Bench of this Court on 17-5- 2010. The writ petition was accepted and the petitioners were acquitted from the charge against them in the Reference pending before the learned Judge Accountability Court No,V, Lahore at that time.
4. The State through Prosecutor-General NAB preferred Civil Petition No,2000 of 2010 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan against the judgment dated 17-5-2010 passed in Writ Petition No,7355 of 2010 which was dismissed on 3-7-2012.
' On 20-3-2012, the learned Judge Accountability Court issued show-cause notices to the petitioners, treating them as Benamidars' and the explanation of the petitioners was called for with regard to the holdings of the main accused Rasheed Ahmad, Patwari.
5. The issuance of show-cause notices was challenged and the learned trial Court was requested to recall the said show-cause notices on the ground that already on the same charges, the petitioners have been acquitted from this court which acquittal attained finality when a Civil Petition, filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, challenging the findings arrived at by this Court on 17-5-2010 in Writ Petition No,7355 of 2010 was dismissed.
6. The learned Judge Accountability Court No,V, Lahore vide order dated 9-4-2012 has dismissed such request of recalling the show-cause notices and directed the petitioners to file reply to the said show-cause notices. The issuance of show-cause notices to the petitioners and dismissal of their application for recalling of said show-cause notices are the acts challenged in the present petition.
7. In support of the petition, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners cannot be prosecuted for the same offence more than once and that the earlier acquittal by this Court from the same charge provides a bar against issuance of any show-cause notice or to carry out any proceedings against the petitioners on the same charges which earlier they have already faced.
8. The learned Prosecutors, appearing on behalf of NAB, have opposed the contentions of the writ petitioners and prayed that the findings of the learned trial Court be maintained.
9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance.
10. By virtue of section 17 of the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999, the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 are mutatis mutandis made applicable to the proceedings under the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999 whereas in view of section 403, Cr.P.C. a person who has once been tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction for an offence and convicted or acquitted of such offence, shall, while such conviction or acquittal remains in force, not to be liable to be tried against for the same offence, nor on the same facts for any other offence for which a different charge from the one made against him might have been made.
11. The Supreme Law of the Country viz. The Constitution provides by virtue of Article 13(a) that no person shall be prosecuted or punished for the same offence more than once.
12. In the present case, the trial against the petitioners commenced at the time when the copies of the prosecution material were supplied to the petitioners and then charge was framed and by means of order dated 17-5-2010 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No,7355 of 2010, the petitioners were acquitted of such charge. The perusal of show-cause notices issued against the petitioners reveal that the same accusation is repeated against the petitioners which has already been dealt with by this Court while acquitting the petitioners.
13. The learned Trial Judge in the impugned order is .Of the view that the petitioners are still `Benamidars' and in view of the learned Trial Judge, this Court has never given any findings as to the status of the petitioners as that of `Benamidars' or otherwise. The learned Judge is misconceived in his such findings. The term "Benamidar" is defined in section 5(da) of the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999 which reads as under:-- "benamidar" means any person who ostensibly holds or is in possession or custody of any property of an accused on his behalf for the benefit and enjoyment of the accused."
' This Court, in order dated 17-5-2010, has held in unambiguous terms that the petitioners have purchised the property from the main accused Rasheed Ahmad and the findings so arrived at attained finality when the leave was refused by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan on 3-7-2012 against the said order and keeping in view the definition of 'Benamidar' as reproduced hereinabove, the property which the petitioners had purchased can in no way be termed as a property ostensibly held or possessed on behalf of the main accused or for the benefit or enjoyment of the said accused. By no stretch of imagination the petitioners can be held as 'Benamidars' with regard to the property held by the main accused Rasheed Ahmad. After such detailed findings and acquittal of the petitioners from the charge framed against them under section 9 of the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999, the issuance of show-cause notices under challenge and declining the prayer of the. Petitioners for recalling the same by the learned Accountability Judge are without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The effect of issuance of show-cause notices is nothing but an action which has been forbidden not only under the provisions of section 403, Cr.P.C. But also under Article 13 of the Constitutional of Islamic Republic Pakistan, 1973.
14. The result is that this writ petition succeeds and the same is allowed, declaring show-cause notices issued to the petitioners as illegal and without lawful authority and the order passed by the learned Judge Accountability Court on 9-4-2010 is an illegal order which is set aside by accepting the application moved by the petitioners for recalling of the show-cause notices.