ABDULLAH BALOCH, J. In this petition, the petitioners have assailed the order dated 28th August 2021 ("the impugned order") passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge Pishin ("the trial Court"), whereby the application filed by the petitioners (accused) on the maintainability of complaint under Sections 3, 4, 5 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, was rejected.
2. Facts of the case are that the respondent No.1 (complainant) Abdul Hameed son of Syed Muhammad Tahir, filed a complaint under Sections 3, 4 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 against the petitioners Muhammad Qaseem, Muhammad Saleem, both sons of Muhammad Anwar, Naimatullah, Mohibullah and Hidayatullah, all sons of Muhammad Qaseem, stating therein the petitioners (accused) have forcibly dispossessed him from his property/house measuring about 10000/11000 Sq. Ft. situated at Abadi Deh of Killi Gangalzai, Tehsil Huramzai, district Pishin ("house in question"). As per respondent No.1 (complainant) the house in question was earlier owned by his aunty Mst. Sadozai, from whom he purchased the same and after taking session constructed room and installed gas meter etc. However, subsequently, the respondent No.1 (complainant) along with his family shifted to Quetta, but the petitioners (accused) by taking the advantage of their absence broken the locks of house in question and started residing in the said house. The respondent No.1 (complainant) made a personal attempt to vacate the house, but without any practical results.
Hence, instant complaint was filed. It appears from the record that after inquiry the learned trial Court took the cognizance of the matter and framed charge against the petitioners (accused), which was denied. In the meantime, the petitioners (accused) filed an application for rejection of complaint on the ground of maintainability. The trial Court, after hearing arguments rejected the application, vide impugned order dated 28th August 2021, whereafter instant petition has been filed.
3. Heard the learned counsel and perused the available record. The perusal of record transpires that the respondent No.1 (complainant) is claiming to be the house in question on the basis of sale agreement executed with its earlier owner i.e. Mst. Sadozai, who otherwise was his aunty, but during his absence the petitioners (accused) broken the locks of house and started residing in it, thus after filing complaint the trial Court took the cognizance of the matter, framed the charge and directed the parties to lead their evidence, but in the meantime, the petitioners (accused) filed an application for rejection of complaint on the basis of judgment dated 31st January 2001 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate MFC, Pishin, with the assertion that with regard to house in question earlier complaint filed against them by Mst. Sadozai was rejected, thus the matter attained finality and the petitioners (accused) cannot be tried twice for the same act or offence, which otherwise amounts to dual jeopardy and is in violation Article 13(a) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 and section 26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897.
4. I have also perused the judgment dated 31st January 2001, wherein the alleged the then owner of house in question Mst. Sadozai had filed a complaint against the petitioners (accused) that on 19th September 2000 they forcibly trespassed in her house by breaking the northern side wall of her house and caused damages to her wall as well as they also used filthy and abusive words for her.
However, the said complaint was rejected vide judgment dated 31st January 2001.
5. The comparative analysis of the complaint filed by the respondent No.1 (complainant) before the trial Court as well as the judgment dated 31st January 2001 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Pishin, transpire that both the matters do not relate with each other. In the present complaint filed under the provisions of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, the respondent No.1 (complainant) has alleged that after purchase of house in question he became the owner of the house in question and in his absence the locks of the house was broken and the petitioners (accused) have started residing in the said house, while as per the contents of complaint filed by Mst. Sadozai that the petitioners filed have trespassed the house in question. It is evident from the record that both the occurrence had taken place at the interval of almost two decades with different allegations and different enactments as well as the modus operandi in both the crimes was different, thus it cannot be stated with any degree of confidence that both the crimes were the same and petitioners have been twisted in similar offence. The constitutional prohibition against 'double jeopardy' was designed to protect an individual from being subjected to the hazards of trial and possible conviction more than once for an alleged offense. It is the mandate of law that one should not be allowed to make repeated attempts to convict an individual for an alleged offense, thereby subjecting him to embarrassm ent, expense and ordeal and compelling him to live in a continuing state of anxiety and insecurity, as well as enhancing the possibility that even though innocent he may be found guilty. The second vitally important interest embodied in the rule of Double Jeopardy is the preservation of the finality of judgments. The facts and circumstances of the instant case are suggestive of the fact that the petitioners have allegedly committed offences under two different enactments though by commission of act and omission in one go and do not at all fall within the ambit of same offence. Thus, the provisions of Article 13(a) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 and section 26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 are not attracted as the rule of dual jeopardy can only be applied in the case of same occurrence in between the same parties, but however, in the instant case admittedly the occurrences in both the occurrences are different' having the interval of more than two decades, thus the learned trial Court has rightly rejected the application so filed by the petitioners. Reliance it this regard is placed on the case of Muhammad Nadeem Anwar v. Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan 2014 CLD 873, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held, as follows: "10. The facts of the instant case, viewed from any angle are suggestive of the fact that the petitioner committed offences under two different enactments though by commission of act and omission in one go and do not at all fall within the ambit of same offence. In such circumstances, provisions of Article 13(a) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 and section 26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 are not relevant in the instant case because the petitioner committed offences which are neither similar to each other nor under the same enactments, therefore, the learned High Court has rightly held so while dismissing the constitutional petition and infra court appeal filed by the petitioner before Peshawar High Court, Peshawar. The learned High Court has, thus, committed no illegality or material irregularity while passing the impugned judgments, as such, the same warrant no interference by this Court in its constitutional jurisdiction. The cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are either from the Federal Shariat Court or High Courts which are not binding on this Court and the facts in the case reported in PLD 2002 SC 273 are different from the facts of the case in hand, as such, are not worthy of the reliance."
For the above reasons, the petition is dismissed in limine.