10. Second Reference-Maintainability-Subject-matters of the two references were quite different from each other-First Reference already decided related to the corruption and corrupt practices committed by the accused and his one co-accused during the period when the accused was serving in Pakistan Navy as Chief of the Naval Staff and received commissions and bribes from suppliers who were under contract with Government of Pakistan to supply defence material to Pakistan Navy-Second Reference related to a different acts of corruption and corrupt practices committed by the accused and two other persons during a different period-Trial or prosecution or accused for different offences committed at different times and detected at a later stage was not violative of the principle of double jeopardy or double prosecution or punishment and Art. 13 of the Constitution or S.403, Cr.P.C. Was not attracted-Even otherwise, accused had not approached me Accountability Court under S.249-A pr 265-K, Cr.P.C. for challenging the impugned proceedings if the same were defective, illegal or not maintainable under the law, and thus invoking the Constitutional jurisdiction was not an appropriate remedy-Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances. Rudolph Santobellow v. New York 404 US 257; Sindh Quality Control Board of Drug and another v. Messrs Pioneer Laboratories, Karachi and 6 others 1993 SCMR 1177 and A. Habib Ahmad v. M.K.G. Scott Christian and Others PLD 1992 SC 353
Translate »Copy Protected by Chetan's WP-Copyprotect.