' Through the instant writ petition, petitioner has challenged the order dated 7.01.2016 passed by the learned Judge ATC-II, Lahore whereby the application moved by the petitioner for consolidating both the criminal cases registered for the same occurrence i.e, case FIR No, 510 dated 17.6.2014, registered under Sections 302/34/324/353/186/ 148/149/290/291/427/506-B/109, PPC, Section 13/13- B of the Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965) and 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and case FIR No, 696 dated 28.8.2014, registered under Sections 302, 324, 109, 148, 149, 395, 427, 506 PPC, Section 155/C of the Police Order, 2002 (later on Sections 365/452/295-B PPC read with Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 were added) at Police Station Faisal Town, Lahore was dismissed.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
3. Brief facts of the case are that FIR No, 510 dated 17.6.2014, under Sections 302/34/324/353/186/148/149/290/291/427/506-B, 109 PPC and Section 13/13-B of the Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965) at Police Station Faisal Town, Lahore was registered on the complaint of Rizwan Qadir Hashmi, Inspector/SHO, Police Station Faisal Town, Lahore against the accused mentioned in the FIR. On the other hand, Muhammad Jawad Hamid, Director Administration, Minhaj-ul-Quran International, Lahore being complainant of the FIR No, 696 dated 28.8.2014, under Sections 302/324/109/148/149/395/427/506 PPC, Section 155/C of the Police Order, 2002 (later on Sections 365/452/295B PPC read with Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 were added), also got registered criminal case against different set of accused with different version regarding the same occurrence detail of which is mentioned in FIR No, 510/14. Reports under Section 173 Cr.P.0 pertaining to case FIR No, 510/2014 and case FIR No, 696/2014 have been submitted in the trial Court separately. Learned trial Court has commenced the trials in these two different cases separately but proceedings in these two cases are being held simultaneously. Petitioner earlier moved an application on 17.11.2015 before the trial Court with the following prayer: "In the above circumstances it is humbly prayed before this Hon'ble Court that a separate trial may be conducted for two wholly different sets of accused persons challaned in the case FIR No, 510/14."
' The aforementioned application was dismissed as not being pressed, thereafter the petitioner on 7.1.2016 moved another application with following prayer: {{URDU TEXT}}
4. The learned trial Court after hearing arguments of the petitioner dismissed the application on 7.1.2016 by observing as under: "Learned counsel for the some of accused have submitted that under Article 13 of the Constitution of Pakistan no one can be tried twice for the same offence therefore, it is essential that the charges in cases FIR No, 510/2014 and 696/2014 registered with regard to the same occurrence against almost same accused be consolidated so as to rule out possibility of separate illegal trials.
' The learned Prosecutor have opposed the application put on behalf of the accused on the ground that the cases FIR No, 510/2014 and 696/2014 Police Station Faisal Town, Lahore stand lodged at the instance of different complainants on the basis of different assertions whereas the investigation of aforementioned both cases were conducted by different JITs and sets of accused being produced in custody to some extent are also different in nature whereas the charges in both the cases, already stand framed hence the consolidation of trials of both the cases as desired by some of the accused is not possible. The dismissal of the application is prayed.
' As regards Article 13 of Constitution of Pakistan 1973, the same relates to double jeopardy cases and has nothing to do with the present proposition. The prospective consolidated of charges in both the cases referred to above is bound to hamper the conclusion of the trials of both the cases.
The investigations in both the cases stand conducted differently and all the accused already stand opined guilty of the commission of offence in question. Under the aforementioned circumstances and to avoid prejudice to any of the parties, the trials of both the cases are being conducted separately but simultaneously which certainly would not cause prejudice to the accused persons. I am supported by PLJ 2006 Crl. 721, 2000 SCMR 641 and PLD 2003 Lahore 71. In view of what has been stated above, the application in hand is also dismissed."
5. The arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner that under Article 13 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 no one can be tried twice for the same offence and case FIR No, 510/14 and 696/14) registered regarding the same occurrence against almost the same accused may be consolidated has no substance. Article 13 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 is hereby reproduced as under:--
13. Protection against double punishment and self-incrimination. No person--
(a) shall be prosecuted or punished for the same offence more than once, or
(b) shall, when accused of an offence, be compelled to be a witness against himself."
6. Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has interpreted the word 'Prosecution' used in Article 13 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 by observing in case Syed Alamdar Hussain Shah v. Abdul Baseer Qureshi & two others (PLJ 1978 Supreme Court 221) which is reproduced as under:-- "8. The important word in Article 13 is "prosecution". According to corpus juris secundum the term "prosecution" has different meanings when used in different relations and it is regarded as a word of limited or extended signification according to the intention of the law maker or the person using it. In its broadest sense the term would embrace all proceedings in the course of justice or even elsewhere for the protection or enforcement of a right or the punishment of a wrong, whether of a public or private character. In a more limited sense the term includes the act of conducting or waging a proceeding in Court: the following up or carrying on of an action or suit already commenced until the remedy be attained; the institution and carrying on of a suit in a Court of law or equity to obtain some right or to redress and punish some wrong. It includes commencing, conducting and carrying a suit to a conclusion in a Court of justice. It is in this limited sense that the word "prosecution" appears to have been used in Article 13 of the Constitution. Significantly, the marginal heading indicates this Article is a protection against double punishment, which tends to show that it is only where the prosecution has finally concluded and ended either in acquittal or conviction that a fresh prosecution for the same offence would be barred. Stroud's Judicial Dictionary explains the term "prosecution" amongst others in the following manner:-- "The "prosecution" of an action ends with the FINAL JUDGMENT therein (Hume v. Druyff, L.R. 8 Ex. 214)."
' The word "prosecute" is derived from a Latin word and signifies not only "to follow", but "to follow intensively" without intermission; thus, to follow or pursue with a view to reach, execute or accomplish.
' According to the Webster's New International Dictionary (Second Edition) "prosecution" means, inter alia, "the process of exhibiting formal charges against an offender before a legal tribunal, and pursuing them to final judgment on behalf of the State or Government as by indictment or information." And in the Oxford English Dictionary "prosecution" means "the following up, continuing, or carrying out of any action, scheme, or purpose, with a view, to its accomplishment."
9. The petitioner was, in the first instance, tried by the Military Court, but Martial Law was lifted before judgment could be pronounced and the case thus remained undecided. He was then tried by a Magistrate, before whom the trial was still in progress when the case was ordered to be transferred to the Sessions. In none of these forums was prosecution pursued to the end, with a view to its accomplishment: and it cannot be said that the petitioner's present trial is in any way derogatory to the principles of autrcfois acquit or autrefois convict, or violative of Article 13 of the Constitution assuming its provisions were operative, which, however, in not the case. This petition is accordingly dismissed."
7. Admittedly, both the cases (FIR No, 510/14 and 696/14) have been registered regarding the same occurrence with different versions and different set of accused well mentioned in both the FIRs, The law is settled by now that different versions of the same incident advanced by the rival parties through cross-cases and different sets of accused persons is to be held simultaneously and side by side. Reliance is place on Niaz Ahmed v. Hasrat Mahmood and others (PLD 2016 Supreme Court 70) which is reproduced as under:- "We have attended to the said argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have also perused the precedent cases referred to by him in support of such contention. The law is settled by now that if different versions of the same incident are advanced by the rival parties through cross-cases and such different versions contain different sets of accused persons then trial of such cross-cases is to be held simultaneously and side by side and a reference in this respect may be made to the cases of Muhammad Sadiq v. The State and another (PLD 1971 SC 713), Abdul Rehman Bajwa v. Sultan and 9 others (PLD 1981 Sc 895), Rashid Ahmad v. Asghar Ali, etc. (1987 PSC 646) and Mst. Rasool Bibi v. The State and another (2000 SCMR 641). The law is equally settled on the point that where the same party lodging the FIR also institutes a private complaint containing the same allegations against the same set of accused persons then the trial Court is to hold a trial in the complaint case first and in the meanwhile the Challan case is to be kept dormant awaiting the fate of the trial in the complaint case."
8. For the foregoing reasons, this writ petition has no merits and is dismissed in limine. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.