MUHAMMAD ARIF, J.---Challenge in this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution has been made to the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under section 409, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 to one year R.I. And a fine of Rs.1,50,000 (Rupees one lac fifty thousand) by the Summary Military Court No.52, Lahore vide order, dated 22-4-1982.
2: The relevant facts are that Muhammad Akbar Minhas Ex-Provincial Minister of Forest, Wild Life and Dairy Development; Government of the Punjab alongwith Muhammad Ishaq petitioner herein and four others were sent up under sections 409/109; P.P.C. Read with section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 by Anti-Corruption Establishment, Lahore. The case of the petitioner and four other co-accused was split up as the question of sanction was involve) while Muhammad Akbar Minhas alone was tried by the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption (Punjab) Camp at Lahore and convicted and sentenced on 19-12-1977. On appeal filed by the said Muhammad Akbar Minhas, his conviction was set aside and he was acquitted of the charges vide order, dated 11-4-1978 passed in Criminal Appeal No.1075 of 1977.
3. Rana Abdul Rahim Khan, learned counsel fob the petitioner argued that the registration of case No.15 dated 28-8-1978 under sections 409/420; P.P.C. Read with section 5 at Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 against the petitioner was tantamount to prosecuting/vexing him twice for the, same offence as the Department had exonerated him in the departmental enquiry after withdrawing the case from the Criminal Court. The contention is devoid of any force. No material has been placed on the record of this case to indicate that at any point of time the petitioner was exonerated by the Departmental Authorities. On the contrary, according to the unattested inquiry report dated 31-7-1978, prepared by the Project Director, Lahore Milk Plant, appended to the writ petition as Annexure-E, it is clearly stated that "prima facie the case needs departmental probe first and after thorough investigation, the present case against the person responsible can be registered with Anti-Corruption Department, therefore, the case may be withdrawn for departmental inquiry r, from Anti-Corruption Establishment." Subsequently, F.I.R. No.15 was registered at the Directorate of Anti-Corruption Establishment, Lahore on 28-8-1978 against the petitioner and four others. It was this case which was tried by the Summary Military Court No.52, Lahore and only the petitioner was convicted and sentenced as mentioned above.
4. It is well settled that 'second prosecution for the same offence is barred only where prosecution has finally concluded and ended either in acquittal or conviction. Here, the prosecution earlier lodged against him did not end in acquittal or conviction of the petitioner, in that, his case alongwith four others was split up for want of sanction from the competent authority in the Government. Later on, F.I.R. No.15 was registered against the petitioner and four others and the case sent up for trial before the Summary Military Court No.52, Lahore. The petitioner was convicted by the Summary Military Court No.52, Lahore vide the impugned judgment, dated 22-4-1982. The Summary Military Court was competently seized of the case and the trial held by it was in no way derogatory to the principles of autrefois convict and autrefois acquit or violative of Article 13 of the Constitution of the Islamic 8 Republic of Pakistan. Same view was taken in an identical case reported as Syed Alamdar Hussain Shah v. Abdul Baseer Qureshi and 2 others PLD 1978 SC 121.
5. The plea raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the conviction of the petitioner suffers from mala fides, in that, the case has been engineered against the petitioner by the Administration of the Lahore Milk Plait which was headed by a Colonel of the Pakistan Army, who put the entire criminal machinery into motion to harass, intimidate and dissuade the petitioner from. The Trade Union activities and toe the line of the Administration against the employees of the plant, is merely a bald allegation which is not supported by any material whatsoever. The plea of mala fides as raised does - not satisfy the objective test laid down in The Federation of Pakistan through the Secretary, Establishment Division. Government of Pakistan Rawalpindi v. Saeed Ahmad Khan and others PLD 1974 SC 151. Furthermore, the controversy raised herein is a past and closed transaction and is hit by the provisions of Article 270-A of the Constitution.
In view of the above, we find no force in the writ petition which is hereby dismissed but there shall be no order as to costs.