IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
 
PRESENT: 
Mr. Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa 
Mr. Justice Dost Muhammad Khan 
Mr. Justice Sajjad Ali Shah 
 
 
Criminal Appeals No. 430 to 432, 442, 446, 447 and 495 of 
2017 
(Against the orders dated 26.01.2016. 29.01.2016 & 03.02.2016 
passed by the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi 
in Criminal Appeals No. 523, 438, 439, 494, 520, 440 and 437 of 
2015) 
 
 
 
The State through Prosecutor-General, Punjab 
 
 
 
 
 
(in all cases)  
 
  
…Appellant 
 
 
 
 
 
versus 
 
Jahangir Akhtar  
 
(in Cr. A. 430 of 2017) 
Muhammad Dilpazeer  
(in Cr. A. 431 of 2017) 
Muhammad Ayub 
 
(in Cr. A. 432 of 2017) 
Majid Ali 
 
 
 
(in Cr. A. 442 of 2017) 
Ghalib Hussain  
 
(in Cr. A. 446 of 2017) 
Bunyad Hussain  
 
(in Cr. A. 447 of 2017) 
Arshad Mehmood 
 
(in Cr. A. 495 of 2017) 
     …Respondents 
 
                
 
For the appellant: 
Mr. 
Muhammad 
Jaffar, 
Deputy 
Prosecutor-General, Punjab  
(in all cases)   
 
For the respondents:  
Mr. Tanvir Iqbal, ASC 
 
Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR 
 
(in all cases) 
 
 
 
Date of hearing: 
 
 
17.01.2018 
 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
 
Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, J.: The 
respondents 
in 
these 
appeals had allegedly obtained employment in the police 
department on the basis of fake and forged School Leaving 
Criminal Appeals No. 430 to 432, 442, 446, 447 and 495 of 2017 
2 
Certificates and upon discovery of such forgery and fabrication 
they were not only compulsorily retired from service but were also 
proceeded against on the criminal side through registration of 
different FIRs. The respondents applied before the trial court under 
section 249-A, Cr.P.C. seeking their premature acquittal and the 
trial court acquitted them of the charge upon acceptance of such 
applications which orders of the trial court were subsequently 
upheld by the High Court through dismissal of different appeals 
filed by the State against the respondents’ acquittal. Hence, the 
present appeals by leave of this Court granted on different dates.  
 
2. 
The impugned orders passed by the trial court in the 
respondents’ cases show that the trial court was labouring under a 
misconception that on account of compulsory retirement of the 
respondents from service they could not be criminally prosecuted 
for the same matter as such prosecution was to amount to double 
jeopardy attracting the provision of Article 13(a) of the Constitution 
of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 and section 403, Cr.P.C. 
and even the High Court had agreed with the said opinion. It had 
not been appreciated by the courts below that disciplinary action 
taken by a department and criminal prosecution are quite distinct 
from each other and can proceed simultaneously or one after the 
other and such separate actions do not attract the principle of 
double jeopardy. It has already been clarified by this Court in 
many a precedent case that disciplinary proceedings are meant 
solely for maintaining and ensuring purity of service whereas 
criminal prosecution is meant to punish a person for the offence 
committed by him and that in a proper case departmental and 
criminal proceedings can proceed simultaneously or one after the 
other. A reference in this respect may be made to the cases of M/s 
Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd., v. The Employees of M/s. Hindustan 
Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. And others (AIR 1979 SC 75), Muhammad 
Sardar Khan v. Senior Member (Establishment), Board of Revenue, 
Punjab, Lahore (1985 SCMR 1062), The Deputy Inspector-General of 
Police, Lahore and others v. Anis-ur-Rehman Khan (PLD 1985 SC 
134), Abdul Sattar v. Government of the Punjab through Additional 
Criminal Appeals No. 430 to 432, 442, 446, 447 and 495 of 2017 
3 
Inspector-General of Police, Lahore and others (1987 SCMR 745), 
Muhammad Ayub v. The Chairman, Electricity Board, WAPDA, 
Peshawar and another (PLD 1987 SC 195), The Superintendent of 
Police, Faisalabad and others v. Muhammad Iqbal (1988 SCMR 
1792), Ghulam Ghaus v. The Chief Engineer, WAPDA, Faisalabad 
Region, Faisalabad and another (1989 SCMR 1139), Abdul Rehman 
v. The Chief Engineer, Sargodha Electricity, Sargodha and others 
(1989 SCMR 1178), Mian Bashir Ahmed v. Board of Revenue, 
Punjab (1989 SCMR 1427), Muhammad Tufail v. Assistant 
Commissioner/Collector (1989 SCMR 316), Amir Abdullah v. 
Superintendent of Police, and others (1989 SCMR 333), Muhammad 
Sarwar v. Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Tehsil Ferozewala and 
3 others (NLR 1989 Service 81), Muhammad Rafiq v. Province of the 
Punjab 
and 
another 
(1990 
SCMR 
1143), 
Dawood 
Ali 
v. 
Superintendent of Police and others (2005 SCMR 948), Syed Aqleem 
Abbas Jafari v. Province of Punjab through Secretary, Irrigation 
Department and others (2005 SCMR 1901), Nazir Ahmed v. Capital 
City Police Officer, Lahore and another (2011 SCMR 484) and 
Muhammad Iqbal v. District Police Officer, Sahiwal and another 
(2011 SCMR 534). We have further observed that the provisions of 
section 249-A, Cr.P.C. could have been invoked only where the 
charge was groundless or there was no probability of conviction of 
the accused person and none of those factors were attended to by 
the courts below in these cases while acquitting the respondents or 
upholding their acquittal.  
 
3. 
For what has been discussed above all these appeals are 
allowed, the impugned orders passed by both the courts below are 
set aside, the status of the respondents as accused persons in the 
relevant criminal cases is restored and the trial court is directed to 
proceed with their trials in accordance with the law. It may be 
clarified that if the respondents were on bail at the time of their 
acquittal then they shall submit fresh bail bonds before the trial 
court and if they were not on bail at the time of their acquittal then 
they shall be arrested and shall be dealt with in accordance with 
Criminal Appeals No. 430 to 432, 442, 446, 447 and 495 of 2017 
4 
the law. The bail bonds and sureties of the respondents furnished 
in connection with the present appeals shall stand discharged.  
 
 
Judge 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
Judge 
Islamabad 
17.01.2018 
Approved for reporting.  
 
Arif