' This petition under section 561-A, Cr.P.C., has been filed by Tahir Ahmad, petitioner, for quashment of F.I.R. No,1, dated 6-1-2000 under sections 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, Police Station, Crimes Branch, Peshawar.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 17-9-1999, the local police of Sukkur in the Province of Sindh had made a Nakabandi at S.I.T.E. Area, Shikarpur Road and during the course of such Nakabandi a truck bearing Registration No,PRD.7752 which was coming from the direction of Shikarpur towards Sukkur was signalled to stop. On query, the driver' and cleaner of the truck disclosed their names as Fareed Khan and Janas Khan respectively. They also stated that different goods of provision have been loaded in the truck from Peshawar. The police personnel alongwith Custom Inspector Ayaz Ali Shah checked the loaded goods according to Bilties. Bilty No,2907, dated 12-9-1999, which was issued by Peshawar-Lahore Goods Transport Company and in which 12 number of cartons of disposable syringes were loaded in the name of University Town, Khairpur, when was made the subject of checking, the same was containing 104 packets of Charas, Weighing about 200 kgs. After observing legal formalities and procedure, the police arrested the driver and cleaner of the truck and also seized the vehicle as well as the goods and a case under sections 6, 7, 9(c) of C.N.S.A. Was then registered against the abovementioned accused vide F.I.R. No,67, dated 17-9-1999 at Police Station, S.I.T.E., Sukkur.
3. As the above-referred seized consignment was booked from the Peshawar-Lahore Transport Company at Peshawar by a Pharmaceutical Company situated at Hayatabad, Peshawar, therefore, the owner of the said `Adds' namely Haji Noor Muhammad, made an application to the I.- G. Police, N.-W.F.P., Peshawar for making an inquiry in the matter for taking the real and actual culprits of the offence into task. Inquiry was conducted under section 156, Cr.P.C. In which Tahir Ahmad, Store-Keeper of Frontier Pharmaceuticals, Hayatabad, Peshawar (petitioner) alongwith other accused were found involved for committing the offence of smuggling of Narcotics.
Accordingly, another F.I.R. No,1, dated 6-1-200 was registered under sections 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 of C.N.S.A. Against Tahir Ahmad, Afsar Ali, Ghufranuddin and Nasib Khan, accused, in a Police Station, Crimes Branch, N.W-.F.P., Peshawar. Tahir Ahmad, petitioner, later on also made a confessional statement wherein he admitted to have committed the crime in question. The application for bail submitted by the accused/petitioner was also turned down by this Court on 31-7-2000 keeping in view his prima facie involvement in the commission of the offence.
4. Now in the abovesaid background, the petitioner Tahir Ahmad prays in the instant petition for quashment of the F.I.R. Lodged at Peshawar mainly on the ground of double jeopardy.
5. The grounds which have been taken by the petitioner in his petition for quashment of the F.I.R. Are to the effect that under the law there cannot be two cases against an accused for a single offence as it amounts to double jeopardy and thus, the second case registered by the Crimes Branch Police at Peshawar is illegal and not maintainable because the accused-petitioner has already been made accused in the case registered at Sukkur for the same offence and there was no legal justification for his involvement and arrest in the second case registered at Peshawar. This stance of the petitioner is totally misconceived as he is neither an accused in the case registered at Sukkur nor any other proof has been produced by the petitioner to show that subsequently he has been made an accused in the said case. The F.I.R. Registered at Sukkur is only against the driver and cleaner of the truck from which the contraband in question were recovered by the local police of Police Station, S.I.T.E., Sukkur.
6. It is now well-settled that there are no hard, and fast rules whereby the Police/Investigating Agencies could he prevented to register a second F.I.R. In respect of different version of an incident or regarding an incident taking place on the same date on which another incident had already taken place. Similarly, sufficient case-law is also available on the point that powers under section 561-A are intended to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court but not to stifle prosecution.
8. As stated above, the petitioner is not an accused in the case registered at Sukkur. It was on the application of the owner of the Transport Adda when during the course of inquiry initiated under section 156, Cr.P.C. It revealed that the petitioner alongwith other persons is involved in the commission of the offence because according to the investigation so far conducted it was the petitioner who being a Store-keeper in the Frontier Pharmaceuticals under the shelter of supplying medical equipment to the down-districts of the country on behalf of the company tried to smuggle a huge quantity of the contraband in the consignment in question and to this effect he has also made a confessional statement. No doubt, the evidentiary value of the said confessional statement and the other evidence collected by the prosecution against him would be subject to appraisement of the trial Court, yet at this juncture of the initial stages of investigation, the acceptance of the prayer of the petitioner, would' obviously amount to stifle the working of the police in presence of sufficient documentary as well as oral evidence against the accused- petitioner for his prima facie involvement in the commission of the offence. As stated above, the accused-petitioner is not an accused in the case registered at Sukkur and, therefore, the quashment of the F.I.R. Lodged at Peshawar would amount to clean acquittal of the accused, depriving the prosecution to prove the authenticity of the material collected by it against the accused petitioner. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the local police of Sukkur under the law could catch-hold of any accused involved in the commission of the offence in question is not worth much importance for the reason that firstly the accused arrested at Sukkur might had not disclosed the name of the petitioner or others either purposely or due to lack of knowledge, thereby keeping. The Investigating Agencies at Sukkur in ignorance about the other accused in the case, and secondly the offence in question being committed at two different places in the two different Provinces, was not falling in the series of offence being committed by one and the same person at two different places.
9. For the aforesaid reasons, the learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to make out that there is no probability of conviction of the petitioner for the offence charged with or that the registration of the F.I.R. At Peshawar against the petitioner amounts to double jeopardy or that quashment of the F.I.R. In question against the petitioner would secure the ends of justice: Therefore, the petition in hand is hereby dismissed being without force.