' These three separate petitions under section 561-A, Cr. P. C. Are for the quashment of the proceedings pending before Magistrate 1st Class, Sargodha.
' All the three petitions arise out of similar charge-sheet issued by the Magistrate and are proposed to be disposed of by this single order.
2. Briefly the facts, necessary for the decision of these petitions, are that the petitioners are Depot- holders in Sargodha. On 28-2-1975, one lqbal Hussain Gillani Inspector, Special Enforcement and Inspection Team, lodged F. I. R. With Police Station Cantonment, Sargodha, that the petitioners have committed offences under sections 6, 7, 9 of Foodstuff Control Act, 1958, and under sections 109/471 and 420/468, P. P. C. Read with rules 44/49 of the Defence of Pakistan Rules inasmuch as, they had been drawing Atta and Sugar against bogus ration cards and that while their depots were being checked by Enforcement Team, Government of the Punjab, Food and Co-operation Department, Lahore, they failed to produce the sale and stock accounts for the months of November and December, 1974. After the completion of the investigation the challan was submitted in the Court of Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Rawalpindi and petitioners are facing trial in that Court.
3. On the same allegations, it is stated, that the Magistrate First Class, Sorgodha has served upon the petitioners with another charge-sheet and they are being charged twice for the same offences, based on the same facts.
4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that it is well-settled principle of law that no person can be put twice in peril for the same offence. The impugned charge-sheet, issued by the learned Magistrate is hit by the principle of double jeopardy and liable to be quashed under section 561-A, Cr. P. C.
5. Learned counsel for the State submitted that on the departmental side, Depots of the petitioners were cancelled by the District Food Controller, Sargodha. The appeals preferred by the petitioners were also dismissed by the Deputy Director Food, Lahore Region, Lahore, on the 6th of December, 1975. Revision petition against the order of Deputy Director Food was, however, accepted by Deputy Secretary Food and the case was remanded to the District Magistrate, Sargodha, for fresh decision.
Learned District Magistrate has sent this case to the Magistrate to report after holding an inquiry. It is contended that a departmental inquiry and criminal proceedings can go side by side and, are not hit by the principle of double jeopardy.
6. The well-established principle of common law nenno debt bis vexari pro edum causa (no person should be twice disturbed for the same cause) is well-recognized, and consistently followed, by our Courts and this principle has been raised to a Constitutional status by Article 13(a) of the Constitution of 1973. Principle of double jeopardy, however, is not attracted where an A person is proceeded against, for an offence, under the Criminal Procedure Code and at the same time he is dealt with in a departmental inquiry for an misconduct, for the reason that any penalty imposed under a departmental enquiry, though amounting to punishment is not a convictton for an offence.
In Bashir Ahmad v. The State (1) it was held:- "I am unable to give effect to the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner since the petitioner was only dealt with departmentally in the inquiry for misconduct and not for an offence. He was imposed a penalty for misbehaviour, which though amounting to punishment, was not a conviction for an offence. He is not being proceeded against for the offence that was alleged to have been committed by him and no authority has been produced before me on his behalf that if a person has been proceeded against departmentally and has {{FOOT NOTE}}
(1) PLD 1967 Lah. 1126 {{FOOT NOTE}} been punished, the offence which he may also have committed stands purged and no longer remains triable or punishable in a regular Court in accordance with the law."
7. In my view, imposition of any penalty in a departmental inquiry does not amount to a conviction and sentence under the Criminal Law in any B sense, so as to attract the application of the principle of "double jeopardy".
8. There is yet another aspect of the case. Section 190, Criminal Procedure Code lays down as to when a Magistrate can take cognizance of a case. It contemplates that a District Magistrate or Sub-Divisional Magistrate or any other Magistrate, specially empowered in this behalf may take cognizance of any offence-
(a) upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence;
(b) upon a report in writing of such facts made by any Police-Officer; (c)upon information received from any person other than a Police Officer, or upon his own knowledge or suspicion that such offence has been committed. Sections 195, 196, 196-A, 197, 198 and 199, Cr P. C. Enumerate the exceptions or provisos to section 190, Cr. P. C. And make it abundantly clear thot no Court shall take cognizance of offences, except, as provided for under these sections. There can be the least doubt, that if the order moved against in the High Court is one passed by any executive officer in his administrative capacity and not under the Criminal Procedure Code, section 561-A, Cr. P. C. Will not come into play, There is no doubt that the terms of section 561-A are wide but at the same time they do not extend the jurisdiction of the High Court to matters which are not already inherent within that jurisdiction, unless a person, aggrieved of an order, can show, that the order has been passed under the Criminal Procedure Code or under any special or local law to which the provisions of Cr. P. C. Has been made applicable, he cannot claim any relief under section 561-A, Cr. P. C.
9. Mr. Shahzad Jahangir learned counsel for the petitioners has candidly conceded that the cognizance of the proceedings taken by the learned Magistrate are not under any provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. Charge-sheet issued by the Magistrate, to the petitioners is under a departmental inquiry entrusted to him by the District Magistrate and he has simply to submit a report after the enquiry. In these circumstances provisions of section 561-A, Cr. P. C. Cannot be pressed into service.
10. In view of the discussion made above, these petitions have no force and are, accordingly, dismissed.