' FARRUKH GULZAR AWAN, J.---Through the above captioned constitutional petition under Article 199 of The Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, petitioner Mukhtiar Ahmad has called in question the legality of order dated 13.2.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Multan whereby application of respondents Nos.2 to 5 for dismissal of private complaint titled "Mukhtiar Ahmad v. Muhammad Hussain etc." filed by the present petitioner under Sections 3, 4 and 7 of The Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 (XI of 2005), Police Station, Alpa Multan, was allowed resulting in dismissal of the complaint.
2. Succinctly, the facts giving rise to the instant constitutional petition are that the petitioner is in second round of litigation on the subject. In his first complaint on the same subject and between same parties, it was alleged that respondents Nos.2 to 5 forcibly dispossessed the petitioner from his land situated at Khu Mithu Wala, Mouza Inayatpur Mahoota, Tehsil and District Multan, which was dismissed by the learned trial Court on 24.2.2007 while relying the case titled "Zahoor Ahmad and 5 others v. The State and 3 others (2007 PCr.0 201)". The petitioner assailed the said order through Writ Petition No,990 of 2007, which also met the same fate vide order dated 28.2.2007 and attained finality. Thereafter, he re-agitated the matter before learned trial Court by filing private complaint on the fresh ground of relying on the judgment of august Supreme Court of Pakistan titled "Raheem Tahir v. Ahmad Jan and others (PLD 2007 SC 423)". During the pendency of said complaint, respondent's Nos.2 to 5 submitted an application for rejection of the complaint on the ground that they cannot be prosecuted twice, which was allowed vide impugned order dated 13.2.2010. Hence, this writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that at the time the petitioner was dispossessed by respondents Nos.2 to 5, no civil as well as criminal litigation was pending between the parties; that the learned trial Court framed charge against the said respondents, recorded statements of the witnesses and on taking cognizance of the matter, complaint could have not been dismissed as at that time no objection was ever raised by the said respondents; that the provisions of Section 403, Cr.P.C. Do not apply to the facts and circumstances of the instant case; that the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court would definitely cause irreparable loss to valuable rights of the petitioner and as such the same is not sustainable.
4. On the other hand, no one is present on behalf of respondents Nos.2 to 5 and even there is no intimation regarding absence of their learned counsel. However, learned A.A.G. Has supported the impugned judgment.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.A.G. For the State and have gone through the available record.
6. "DOUBLE JEOPARDY" means "The fact of being prosecuted or sentenced twice for substantially the same offence.
'Black's Law Dictionary'
7. Section 403 Cr.P.C. Is based on the maxim nemo debt bis vexari, "nobody could be vexed twice for the same offence". The rights of an accused already prosecuted for an offence, have been protected by virtue of Article 13 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 which reads as under:-- "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.
8. The question whether a particular trial is barred by reason of previous prosecution ending in conviction or acquittal, is to be determined on the facts and circumstances of a particular case.
The word 'offence' signifies the act or omission made punishable under the same provision of law and if the same is punishable under different statutes/ provisions of law, it cannot be said to have committed the same offence. Under Section 26 of the General Clauses Act (X of 1897) read with the aforementioned Article of the Constitution ibid, no one can be vexed twice prosecuted and punished for the same offence. The principle of `Double Jeopardy' is applicable to the same offence under the same statute/provision of law only. I have obtained guidance from the case law reported as "Muhammad Nadeem Anwar v. Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan through Director NBFCs Department, Islamabad (2014 CLD 873 SC)."
9. In the instant case, after attaining finality in first round of litigation, the petitioner re-agitated his grievance by filing second aforementioned private complaint in respect of same occurrence vexing respondents Nos.2 to 5, which cannot be perpetuated through the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order, which is in accordance with law and is hereby maintained.
' In view of above, the writ petition in hand is devoid of any force, the same stands dismissed.