PESHAWAR, May 7: A two-member bench of the Peshawar High Court on Tuesday reserved its verdict in a writ petition on the question whether a public servant could be tried twice in a corruption case.

The petition was filed by Muhammad Haneef and two other employees of Kohat Town Committee, stating that they were acquitted by court of judicial magistrate, but now they would be tried by the court of special judge anti-corruption.

The bench comprising Justice Khalida Rachied and Justice Qazi Ahsanullah Qureshi heard arguments by Advocate Nusrat Yasmeen appearing for the petitioner and additional advocate-general Imtiaz Ahmad, representing the government.

Ms Yasmeen argued that first an FIR of criminal breach of trust was registered against the petitioners on Sept 22, 1999, at a police station in Kohat under section 408, 409, 419, 420 and other sections of Pakistan Penal Code, and in that case the petitioners were acquitted.

Later on, she added, another FIR was registered at police station anti-corruption on Jan 22, 2000, wherein section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was added with provisions of PPC.

Ms Yasmeen contended that the government’s act was unconstitutional as under Article 13 no person should be prosecuted or punished for the same offence more than once. She added that on the same charges the petitioners could not be tried again. She stated that it was a case of “double jeopardy”, adding that once they were tried by the magistrate under the Criminal Procedure Code then the special judge had no authority to conduct another trial.

She referred to various judgments of superior courts in support of her contention, stating that in these cases the superior courts had quashed proceedings before other courts when the appellants were already tried once.

Imtiaz Ahmad argued that it was the exclusive jurisdiction of the special judge anti-corruption to try government officials involved in cases of corruption.

He argued that Prevention of Corruption Act was a special law and had overriding effect on other laws. He referred to a judgment of the supreme court, stating that even if a court had already conducted trial the proceedings before the competent court should be considered.