ABDUL HAMEED BALOCH, J.--This order shall dispose of Constitution Petition No.1014 of 2019, which is directed against the order dated 31st August, 2019 (impugned orde r) passed by the learned Additional Sess ions Judge, Sariab Quetta (Revisional Court), whereby the order dated 22.06.2019, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-XIV , Quetta was upheld.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a complaint under Section 200, Cr.P.C. before the trial court against the private respondents, alleging therein that the private respondents launched an attack upon him and caused injuries on his head and other parts of the body . He further alleged that out of the assailant, Muhammad Gul and Ghulam Mustafa were armed with daggers while the others were having sticks in their hands.
Pursuant to the above the respondents appeared before the trial court and filed an application under section 203, Cr.P.C. The trial court after hearing the parties dismissed the complaint vide order dated 22nd June, 2019. The petitioner feeling aggrieved of the order of the trial court filed a Criminal Revision Petition before the Revisional Court, which was also dismissed vide impugned order . Hence this petition.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the available record. The perusal of record reveals that prior to filing the referred complaint, an FIR No.67 of 2017 was also lodged with PS New Sariab Quetta in respect of the referred to occu rrence, wherein the respondents Nos.1 to 3 were nominated, who faced the trial, whereafter the trial court vide order dated 17th July, 2018 acquitted the respondents of the charge.
Besides the petitioner also filed a C.P. No.1095/2018 before this court, but when confronted with the maintainability of the Constitutional Petition in view of the dictum laid down by the Hon' able Supreme Court on the case of Mst Sughra Bibi v. State PLD 2018 SC 595, in respect of registration of second FIR, the appellant did not press the Constitution Petition and intended to avail the remedy of filing the private complaint, hence the complaint was filed before the trial court, and the trial court initiated the inquiry and after recording the statement of witnesses, dismissed the complaint and revision petition filed before the Revisional Court was also dismissed vide impugned order .
4. Since the respondents Nos.1 to 3 faced trial in respect of case FIR No.67 of 017 and the same allegation as levelled in the referred FIR was leveled in the complaint, under such circumstances Article 13 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 (the Constitution) as well as section 403 of the Code come into play, therefore in order to comprehend the issue effectively , it would be appropriate to reproduce the aforesaid two provisions of law as under:- "Article 13 of the Constitution: 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"
"Section 403 of the Code: 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 some 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.
(2) A person acquitted or convicted for any offence may be afterwards tried for any distinct offence for which a separate charge might have been made against him on the former trial under sections 235, subsection (1).
(3) A person convicted of any offence constituted by any act causing consequences which together with such act, constituted a different offence from that of which he was convicted, may be afterwards tried for such last-mentioned offence, if the consequence had not happened, or were not happened, or were not known to the Court to have happened, at the time when he was convicted.
(4) A person acquitted or convicted of any offence constituted by any acts may, notwithstanding such acquittal or conviction, be subsequently charged with, and tried for any other offence constituted by the same acts which he may have committed if the Court by which he was first tried was not competent to try the offence with which he is subsequently charged.
(5) Nothing in this section shall affect the provision of section 26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, or section 188 of this Code 9."
5. Admitted the aforesaid law is based on ancient principle of law that "Nemo bis punitur aut vixatur pro eodem delicto " which means that no one should be vexed twice for the same offence. It is an admitted fact that after final adjudication of the matter by the court of competent jurisdiction the same cannot be permit to reopen. The same principle i.e. "autrefois acquit (formerly acquitted) and autrefois convict (formerly convicted)" is prevailing in the common law. This fundamental principle of law which has been embodied in our Constitution as well the Code and the General Clauses Act is that once a person was prosecuted and acquitted for an offence, he cannot be subsequently tried for the same and this view was affirmed in 2011 SCMR 484 titled "Nazir Ahmad v. Capital City Police Officer, Lahore and another" , 2011 SCMR 1083 titled "The State through Collector of Customs v.
Nasim Amin Butt and others " and 2014 SCMR 1376 titled "Muhammad Nadeem Anwar v. Securities and Exchange, Commission of Pakistan through Director NBFs Deptt: Islamabad ".
6. In Nazir Ahmad's case, the Supreme Court of Pakistan has laid down the following principles for applicability of Article 13 of the Constitution so as to bar re-trial of an accused for the same of fence:- "Article 13 of the Constitution sanctifies the well-settled principle of law that no person will be tried for an offence on the same set of facts on which he has already been acquitted or convicted. For applicability of the rule of "autre fois acquit", essential conditions to be satisfi ed are: (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 jurisd iction, 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."
7. In view of above, sine the subject matter has already been tried by the court of competent jurisdiction in FIR's case between the same parties, therefore while following the referred principle laid down by the Hon'able Supreme Court of Pakistan, we are of the considered opinion that the learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any illegality and irregularity in the orders passed by the court below warranting interference by this court in a constitutional jurisdiction.
Thus, this petition being devoid of merits is dismissed in limine .