' MRS. SYEDA TAHIRA SAFDAR, J.-- This petition was filed by Manzoor Hussain Jamali with an intent to obtain an order to quash the proceedings before the Accountability Court-II, Balochistan Quetta, and the Anti-Corruption Court Balochistan, Quetta. The violation of Article 13 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 (The Constitution) was pressed for the purpose. The petition was with the facts that he (petitioner) was facing trial before the Anti-Corruption Court Balochistan, Quetta, for the charges, while with identical facts a Reference under the National Accountability Ordinance 1999 (NAO 1999), was filed against him, thus violative to Article 13 of the Constitution, which mandated that no person should be prosecuted or punished for the same offence more than once.
2. The learned counsel was heard, who repeated the stance taken in the petition with no addition, except that his request for acquittal was declined by the trial Court.
3. The papers annexed with the petition were with the facts that the petitioner was indicted of the charge by the Judge, Anti-Corruption Court Balochistan, Quetta on 20th July 2016, in response to FIR registered on stance of the Food Department. Meanwhile the proceedings under the National Accountability Ordinance 1999 were also initiated, and a Reference was submitted, while the Accountability Court-II, Balochistan, Quetta took cognizance of the offence. Framed the charge against the petitioner on 30th May 2016. The petitioner approached the Accountability Court for exercise of powers under Sections 249-A and 265-K Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C). The application was for his pre-mature acquittal, with the assertion that both the cases were for same acts, thus the proceedings before the Accountability Court-II, Balochistan, Quetta amounts to double jeopardy, violative of Article 13 of the Constitution. An application with identical plea was filed before the Judge, Anti-Corruption Court Balochistan, Quetta. It was decided vide order dated 21st November 2016, and the relief claimed was declined for the reason that the prosecution evidence has already been completed. This order was not questioned in the instant petition, rather the relief claimed was to the effect to declare that the cases pending before the referred to two forums, under different laws amounts to double jeopardy, violative of Article 13 of the Constitution, thus liable to be quashed, with an order to restrain the respondents from proceeding with the cases for same offence in two different forums.
4. The claim of the petitioner rests on Article 13 of the Constitution. Thus for better understanding reproduction would be.
"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."
' This Article protects a person to be prosecuted or punished for the same offence more than once.
It is to save him from agony of trial and from punishment twice for the same offence, and also to place an end to a criminal proceedings. In case in hand the petitioner approached this Court to enforce the right guaranteed by the Constitution, thus to be deliberated with reference to the relevant Article and the facts of the case. This Article restricted to the punishment and prosecution more than once for same offence, thus act as a bar for further proceedings, but silent about an order of acquittal recorded in favour of a person. The term prosecution used in the Article is to be understood in its true context, it will help to arrive to a correct decision. The sequence in which the term prosecution has been used might not be restricted only to trial of a case ended in conviction, rather to be dealt in its broader sense. It literally means a criminal proceeding in which an accused person is tried, or the process of being officially charged with a crime in court. If look into its broader sense it includes commencing, conducting and carrying a proceeding, and a decision in a court of justice either in terms of acquittal or conviction. Thus in the context a fresh prosecution for the same offence would be barred only where some prosecution has been finally concluded either ended in acquittal or conviction.
5. The instant petition was filed only with the assertion of the right guaranteed under Article 13 of the Constitution, but missed the relevant provision of the law i,e, Criminal Procedure Code which deals with the situation. Section 403, Cr.P.C. Is specific to the effect. Subsection (1) of the Section reads as under: "Section 403, Cr.P.C. Persons once convicted or acquitted not to be tried for the same offence. (1) 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 again 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 under section 36, or for which he might have been convicted under section 237."
' The Honorable Supreme Court while dealing with the issue determined the principles of double punishment and the protection provided in the Constitution and the law. The term of prosecution was elaborated in the case titled Alamdar Hussain v Abdul Baseer Qureshi, PLD 1978 SC 121, and was held: "---- 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 terms "prosecution" amongst others in the following manner: "The "prosecution" of an action ends with the FINAL JUDGMENT therein."
' In the case Nazeer Ahmed v. Capital City Police Officer Lahore, (2011 SCM R 484), the essential conditions to apply for the right available under Article 13 of the Constitution were determined that: "--- (1) there must have been a trial of the accused for the offence charged against him, (2) the trial must have been by a Court of competent jurisdiction and (3) there must have been a judgment or order of acquittal, (4) the parties in the two trials must be the same, (5) fact-in-issue in the earlier trial must be identical with what is sought to be re-agitated in the subsequent trial."
' This principle further elaborated in 1995 SCM R 626, in case of Muhammad Ashraf v. The State, by the honorable Supreme Court. It was held that: "It is to be noticed that the Constitutional guarantee is confined only to duplicate punishment and is silent in so far as acquittal is concerned. Section 403(1) however prohibits the second trial for an offence during the course of existence of conviction or acquittal of a person, as the case may be, in consequence of final adjudication of such an offence by a Court of competent jurisdiction. Thus the rule against "Autrefois acquit" finds place in section 403(1) and the counterpart of this rule "autrefois convict" has received recognition in the Constitutional guarantee embodied in Article 13 (a)."
In the case in hand neither the trial before the Anti-Corruption Court Balochistan, nor before the Accountability Court-II, Balochistan, Quetta have been finally concluded, nor any conviction or acquittal was recorded to the petitioner. Thus in absence of the necessary ingredients the right available under Article 13 (1) of the Constitution neither could be pressed, nor the benefit of Section 403 Cr.P.C. Could be extended. The petition is dismissed for the stated reasons.