A r t i c l e 199 of the Constitution make clear that writ of habeas corpus need not to be sought necessarily by an aggrieved person. Petitioner being as Advocate and a Director of Human Rights Organization was even competent and had locus standi to file writ of habeas corpus.
© C op y r i gh t Virtual Un i v e r s i ty of Pakistan 83 83 MGT621 VU L ec t u r e 20 Fundamental R i g h t s ---- ( 1 ) P r o t ec t ion Against Double Punishment P r o te c ti o n against double punishment: Article 13 (a) of the Pakistan Constitution 1973 provides that “no person shall be p r o sec u t e d or punished for the same offence more than once”. P r o sec u t e d (= to put on t r i al) The Article 13 (a) raises to constitutional status the principle of “ autrefois convict” and “autrefois acquit” embodies in section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 which provides that a person who has once been tried by a Competent Court for an offence and convicted or acquitted of such offence, shall while such conviction or acquittal remains in force, not be liable to be tried again for the same offence nor on the same fact for any other offence for which a different charge from the one made against him might have been made under Section 236 or for which he might have been convicted under Section 237 of the Code of C r i mina l Procedure 1898. Convicted (= found g uilt y ) Acquitted (= not found g uil t y ) The principle also finds place in a modified form in Section 26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 which provides that where an act or omission constitutes an offence under two or more enactments , then the offender shall be liable to be prosecuted and punished under either or anyone of those enactments but shall not be liable to be punished twice for the same offence. Act (= do something) Omission ( = la p s ; slip) Enactments (= Laws made by P a r li a m e n t ) These provisions, however, not bar subsequent trial for a ‘ d i s t i n c t ’ or ‘ d i ff e r e n t ’ or ‘ o t h e r ’ offence as d esc r i b e d in subsections (2) & (3) of Section 403 of the Criminal Procedure Code 1898. Bar (= stop) Rule against double j e o p a r d y : This principle is described by Americans as the rule against double j e o p ar d y which is based on the Common Law maxim: ‘ ne mo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem ca u sa ’ . When a criminal charge has been once ad j ud i c at e d upon by a Court of competent jurisdiction, that adjudication is final, whether it takes the form of an acquittal or a conviction. J e o pa r dy (= trouble) Adjudicated (= decision g i ve n )
© C op y r i gh t Virtual Un i v e r s i ty of Pakistan 84 84 MGT621 VU Article 13 (a) of the Pakistan Constitution also follows the American and the Common Law rule by pr ov i d i ng that “no m an s h a ll be prosecuted or punished for the s a m e offence m ore than on ce .
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 153 pages?