1. These are the references by the learned Additional Sessions Judges, Karachi, for the quashment of the proceedings arising out of the same case.
2. In this case the first report was lodged with the police on 17-12-1964 for an offence under sections 420 and 468, P. P. C. The respondents were challaned on 11-3-65. However, no progress was made till 8-2-66 when three witnesses appeared and out of them to were given up while one witness was examined and he did not support the prosecution. Thereafter no other witness appeared and finally on 15-8-66 an application was made by the Public Prosecutor under the instructions of the District Magistrate for the withdrawal of the case. Necessary permission was granted by the Magistrate trying the case and the respondents Were discharged under section 494(a), Cr. P. C.
3. However, on 13th August 1967; i. e. After about a year a fresh challan on the same facts and allegations was presented. The respondents, aggrieved by this challan, filed to separate revision petitions in the Sessions Court. The learned Additional Sessions Judges who dealt with those revision petitions were of the view that the impugned order was not sustainable and the Magistrate was not competent to proceed with the case. Consequently they made the reference to quash the proceedings.
4. The learned State counsel had supported the references. Reliance was mainly placed upon the authority of the Supreme Court in the case of Abdul Hossain Sana v. Suwalal Agarwala (PLD 1962 SC 242). It was clearly laid down that the effect of an order of discharge was that the revival of the proceedings could not be permitted without the order of the revisional Court as by the order of discharge the Magistrate exhausted his jurisdiction so far as the proceedings before him were concerned. It was further held that an order of discharge which was based on merits and which was not plainly or substantially an order passed in default, although, it did not in law constitute a legal bar will practically have the same, effect as an order of acquittal. It was also observed that in the case of an order of discharge passed on merits fresh proceedings would be improper and would not be permitted.
5. In the present case, although the order was not passed on merits as permission was granted to the Public Prosecutor to withdraw from the prosecution but it will be an abuse of the process of the Court if in such a case fresh proceedings on the same facts are allowed to be initiated. Law aims at finality of the proceeding, and once those proceedings come to an end in accordance with law no fresh proceedings can be allowed unless set aside in appeal or revision, whatever the case may be. The order of discharge passed in this case held the field for full one year and, therefore, it is not possible to conceive of a situation that fresh proceedings can be started after such a long the.
6. Apart from this, even an merits, the discharge under section 253 could be justified at that stage when the withdrawal was permitted and the order of discharge was passed under section 494, Cr.
7. P. C. It was pointed out by the learned counsel for the State that there were only three material witnesses and all of them had appeared before the learned trial Court on the date of hearing but out of them to were given up, apparently for the reason that they were not supporting the prosecution, while the third witness who was examined did not support the prosecution: All other witnesses were of formal nature and could in no. Way improve the case of the prosecution.
8. In the result I accept the references and q uash the proceedings.