PESHAWAR, Oct 11: A liquor smuggling case has been lingering for the past nine years in two different courts.

Officials of the customs department had allegedly recovered 84 foreign liquor bottles from the accused, Ghulam Rasool, on June 18, 1994, in Peshawar and had charged him under the Customs Act and Section 3/4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hudood) Order, 1979.

When an accused is charged under these laws, it is customary for him to face double trial as the special judge customs conducts a trial under the Customs Act, while a judicial magistrate concerned has to conduct a separate trial under the Prohibition Order.

Article 13 of the Constitution provides that no person shall be prosecuted or punished for the same offence twice. But, in contravention to the constitutional provision, an accused charged under both these laws has to face a double trial.

In various judgments, the superior courts had ruled that double trial was unconstitutional. However, the practice continued in the subordinate courts.

The accused Ghulam Rasool was released on bail on Oct 25, 1994, and since then he had been visiting courts on every hearing.

Interestingly, his lawyer, Usman Khan of Tarlandi, had filed an application on Oct 6, 1997, under Section 249-A of the Criminal Procedure Code before the court of judicial magistrate, requesting the judge to acquit the accused, citing insufficient evidence against him. He had stated that officials had taken samples for chemical examination from only four of the bottles recovered from his possession, rendering the entire recovery doubtful.

Under the said section the magistrate was empowered to acquit a person at any stage of the trial when he realised that there was no probability of his conviction. The said application remained undecided for the past six years.

The lawyer of the accused cited various reasons for the delay in completion of the trial, including transfers of judicial magistrates concerned, adding that many of the case’s witnesses were customs officials and they had been posted in different parts of the country, rendering them unable to appear before the court and effectively delaying the trial’s conclusion.

The accused’s lawyer said that the application under section 249-A CrPC had become useless as the trial was now in its final stage before the judicial magistrate, Adil Akber, and the case was now fixed for hearing on Oct 16.

After the completion of trial by the judicial magistrate, the special judge customs would commence trial against the accused.

Mr Tarlandi said: “The accused, whether he is acquitted or convicted, will suffer twice. There are clear provisions of the Constitution and the CrPC against double trial, but the courts have been overlooking those provisions.”