ZAFAR PASHA CHAUDHARY, J.- It is submitted that FIR No. 125/97 was relating to an offence allegedly committed in 1995 regarding the same offence. According Jo the learned counsel, FIR No. 18/96 was registered for an offence allegedly committed on 10.3.1996. It is, however, admitted that the challan in case FIR No. 18, dated 10.7.1996, has not so far been submitted. Learned Standing Counsel submits on instructions, that the challan is awaiting permission of the competent authority, in absence of which the same cannot be submitted.
2. Since challan in the earlier FIR No. 18 has not been submitted so far, the petition is, therefore, premature. However, if the petitioner finds that he is being tried twice for the same offence he has a right to bring it to the notice of the learned trial Judge. Even if he is acquitted he can plead that he has already been acquitted for the offence for which he is being challaned. Learned Standing Counsel, however, controverted the submissions made by the petitioner and after going through the record states that in fact two distinct offences have been committed.
3. Be that as it may, the challan has not been submitted in case-FIR No. 18 so far. This petition is, therefore, premature and is disposed of accordingly. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.