MUHAMMAD ARIF, J.--- This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 calls in question the order, dated 2-6-1979 passed by the Summary Military Court No.42, Lahore, whereby the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to one year's R.I. And confiscation of his property.
2. The relevant facts are that Chaudhry Ghulam Qadir petitioner herein was elected as Member of the Provincial Assembly, Sialkot in December, 1970. He submitted his Assets' Declaration under Martial Law Regulation No.1. It was referred to the Enquiry Commission and then was examined by Assets Scrutiny Committee No.2, both of whom sent their respective reports in that behalf. After receiving the reports from the said Commission and the Committee, the Chief Secretary, Punjab referred the case of the petitioner to the Disqualification Tribunal under sub-paragraph (1) of para 4 of the Martial Law Order No.31. The allegation against the petitioner was that by exercising his undue influence as M.P.A. He got wrong entries made in the Revenue Record in collusion with the relevant revenue staff and got transferred in his favour 100 Kanals of land near Sialkot to which he was not entitled. It was also alleged that by misusing his position as such, the petitioner also acquired 13 Kanals 10 Marlas of land near Sialkot. The petitioner denied the charges before the Disqualification Tribunal which, after trial and providing an opportunity of being heard, found him guilty of misconduct under Martial Law Order No.31 read with Martial Law Regulation No.21 and disqualified him for 7 years from being elected or chosen as a Member of Parliament or Provincial Assembly vide order, dated 7-5-1978. The Disqualification Tribunal also referred the case to Summary Military Court No.42, Lahore for confiscation of his land. The Summary Military Court No.42 charge-sheeted the petitioner under sections 109/468 and 420, P.P.C. And convicted him to one year's R.I. And ordered confiscation of the said property vide the impugned order, dated 2-6-1979.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that there was no evidence to connect him with the offence and therefore, the conviction of the petitioner was not sustainable in law. A perusal of the material placed on the record shows that at the time of the disqualification of the petitioner under Martial Law Order No.31, the case of the petitioner was gone into in detail and after the conclusion of trial he was disqualified as mentioned in the above. It was after the recommendation for confiscation of the property that the petitioner was charge-sheeted under sections 109/468 and 420, P.P.C. By the Summary Military Court No.42, Lahore, wherein it was proved that during the year 1974 he got prepared a forged Khasra Girdawari showing him in possession of the disputed land measuring 103 Kanals 10 Marlas with ulterior motive to use it for the purpose of cheating and did in fact, cheat Assistant Commissioner, Sadar Sialkot by inducing him to transfer the ownership of the said land to him at the nominal price of Rs.10 per produce index unit.
4. It was next argued that the petitioner having been prosecuted and punished by the Disqualification Tribunal, he was not liable to be punished again for the same offence as done by the Summary Military Court No.42. The contention is devoid of any force. The proceedings before the Disqualification' Tribunal and the Summary Military Court clearly fall into two distinct categories and principle of double jeopardy is not involved.
5. It was next contended that the Chief Martial Law Administrator dirt not recommend punitive action against the petitioner under paragraph 7 of Martial Law Regulation No.21 and therefore, the impugned conviction and sentence of the petitioner was invalid. The plea is misconceived. The impugned order has been passed by the Summary Military Court and even if the conviction and sentence of the petitioner purports to be irregular, the same is saved by Article 270-A of the Constitution. Learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to point out any infirmity in law attaching to the impugned conviction. The writ petition, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed but there shall be no order as to costs.
SA./G-26/L