[Sections 221 To 240, Cr.P.C.]
Object of charge. The whole object of framing a charge is to enable the defence to concentrate its attention on the case that he has to meet, and if the charge is framed in such a vague manner that the necessary ingredients of the offences with which the accused is convicted is not brought out in the charge, then the charge is defective. Makhan v. Emperor. AIR 1945 All. 81.
Charge framed grossly defective, not giving full notice to the accused of allegations against him, held, trial vitiated. Case remanded for retrial. (DB) PLJ 1991 Cr.C. (Lah.) 396. Muhammad Shafiq etc.
Precise accusation. It is one of the elementary principles of criminal law that an accused person must know what the precise accusation against him is, before he is called upon to enter on his defence. Inder Pal v. Emperor. AIR 1935 Lah. 409 (411).
Relevant sub-section sec. 302 PPC to be mentioned as it would determine the question of quantum of sentence. 1996 SCMR 869, Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq.
Without framing a charge u/s 16 of Ordinance VII of 1979 an accused who is acquitted for offence u/S. 10 (2) of the ordinance cannot be convicted for that offence. Accused acquitted. 1995 P.CR.L.J. 453, Mst. Fauzia.
Amendment cannot cure illegality. An illegal charge cannot be amended or altered and such amendment will not cure the illegality. Thus, where a charge is drawn up of four offences committed within one year, it is wholly illegal under section 234, Cr.P.C., and the illegality cannot be cured by striking out one of the offences and convicting the accused for remaining three. Manavala v. Emperor 29 Mad. 569.
Errors committed in stating offence or particulars of charge or omissions are not material unless accused in misled by such errors or omissions causing failure of justice. 1992 SCMR 1583, Shah Nawaz.
When Ss. 409 & 477-A PPC had arisen from same transaction as falsifications was in consequence of six items misappropriated by accused. On joint charge was framed by the trial Court covering both offences and two separate charges were not farmed which was an error pertaining to offences or particulars of charge and was curable u/S. 537 Cr. P.C. as no prejudice was caused to the accused or failure of justice occasioned. 1992 SCMR 1583, Shah. Nawaz.
Non prejudice to the accused arises where the amended charge merely puts in more appropriate words the substance of the original charge. (FB) AIR 1944 Sindh 1. Vishandas.
Non-compliance with the provisions of section 234, Cr.P.C. is not merely an irregularity but is an illegality which vitiates the trial. 32. Cr. LJ 195 Kalu Mian.
Section 235, Cr. P.C. must not be taken as controlled by the words "not exceeding three" occurring in section 234, Cr.P.C. there is nothing in this section to warrant the rule that not more than three offences can be combined even if those offence have been committed in the same transaction. 22 Cr. LJ 641 Sanuman.
Criminal breach of trust and falsification of accounts, that is offences u/Ss. 409 and 477-A PPC, are offences of the same kind particularly when not committed in the same transaction and to join several items of misappropriation with corresponding offence of falsification of accounts, is therefore not permissible. Such joinder of charges is illegal being in contravention of Ss. 234 & 235. If two offences of misappropriation and falsification of accounts are committed in the same transaction in one series of acts then rule laid down in sec. 235 will apply. 1992 SCMR 1583, Shah Nawaz.
More than three offences spread over a period of longer than a year when committed in the course of the same transaction can be charged together and there is no illegality. 26 Cr. LJ (1513) Gam Mallu.
While three offences/items are permitted to be combined under one charge as provided u/s 234 Cr.P.C., such limitation was not applicable in the case of Criminal breach of trust in which several offences are committed within a period of one year, are permitted to be combined under one charge as is allowed u/S. 222 (2) Cr.P.C. 1992 SCMR 1583, Shah Nawaz. 1980 SCMR 402, Nadir Shah relied upon.
Same transaction. The essential condition is the continuity of action which involves essentially continuity or proximity of time; in other words, the series of acts must be so connected together as to form a single and entire transaction clearly then, continuity of action or proximity of time is very essential element in connecting a series of acts together so as to form a part of the same transaction. AIR 1964 Sindh 23 (24) Faiz Muhammad v. Emperor.
Conviction for least serious offence is perfectly good where the Magistrate has found that, facts do exist which establish that the accused person must have committed some offence although it is doubtful exactly what that offence was 39 Cr. LJ 152 Babu Ram v. Emperor.
Ordinary rule, undoubtedly is that the accused cannot be convicted of any offence with which he is not charged. But to this ordinary rule there are two exceptions contained in section 237 and 238, Cr.P.C (FB) AIR 1946 Bom. 38 (41) Bombay Government v. Abdul Wahab.
True test is whether the facts are such as give the accused notice of the offence for which he is going to be convicted though he was not charged with it so that he is not prejudiced by the mere absence of specific charge. 35 CWN 945 Meher Sheikh.
Where minor offence requires a complaint u/S. 198 or 199, Cr.P.C a person charged with one offence cannot be convicted of a minor offence. A person charged with rape or abduction cannot be convicted for adultery in the absence of a complaint by the husband for adultery. 13 Cr. LJ 287 Imam Khan.
No common intention or object. If the accused do not act with any common intention when there is an accidental quarrel among person collected to witnesses a festival and if some persons inflict injuries on other they would be committing different offences of hurt. Although all the persons committing the offences are there at one and the same place at the same time they cannot be said to be committing offences in the same transaction. In such a case a joint trial would be improper. 26 Cr. LJ 734 Tufail Ahmad v. Emperor.
Accused charged under minor offence cannot be convicted for major offence. Accused was charged u/S. 148/149 but the Sessions Judge acquitted the accused u/S. 148/149 PPC and sentenced him u/S. 324 PPC Petitioner acquitted. PLJ 1991 Cr.C. (Lah.) 131. Ahmed Yar.
Charge for major offence but conviction was recorded for minor offence not spelled out of the major offence. Conviction held illegal, as the ingredients of major offence were not a notice to the accused about minor offence. (SC) PLD 1960 SC 173 Sultan Ahmad,
Charge u/S. 302, PPC not cognate to offence u/S. 304-A, PPC. The accused was charged u/S. 302, PPC but was convicted u/s, 304-A, PPC. Supreme Court allowed leave to appeal to consider whether conviction was proper. 1988 SCMR 928 Khalid Ahmed.
Misjoinder of charges is not curable under section 437, Cr.P.C. Five accused were charged with inflicting fatal injuries to the deceased on a certain day but only some of them with causing hurt to some of the deceased a day earlier. Two incidents were not linked together by motive or design. Where the trial is found to have been conducted in a way not authorised by law and by the rules of procedure relating to matters of fundamental character, the entire proceedings must be set aside irrespective of any questions of prejudice to any one. Retrial approved. (FC) PLD 1956 FC 129 Qadar Dad v. Sultan Bibi etc.
"Is a mere irregularity curable under section 537, Cr. P.C. (SC) PLD 1975 SC 506 Brig F.B. Ali PLJ 1975 SC 369.
"Is curable under section 537, Cr.P.C. and does not vitiate trial. (DB) PLJ 1976 Lah. 134 State v. Sardar Shah.
"Two transactions, one relating to payment of bribe to M and other relating to payment of bribe to Z on another day. Both incidents joined up in one case. Each transaction independent. Held case of misjoinder of charges causing prejudice to the appellant. Irregularity not curable under section 537, Cr.P.C. Proceedings quashed. However, accused appellants could be tried separately. (SC) 1973 SCMR 542, Muhammad Abbas.
Charge under section 302 but conviction under section 411, PPC. A person charged only with murder can be convicted under section 411, PPC when evidence is such. (DB) 45 Cr. LJ 221, Bhikha v. Emperor 210 IC 362.
Charge under section 302 and conviction under section 201. (Section 237, Cr.P.C.) Conviction under section 201 is not illegal. (PC) 52 IA 191; AIR 1925 PC 130 (a) Begu v. Emperor.
Charge under section 201, PPC that the accused had disposed of murdered man's body. Disposal of body not proved. Conviction for disposing of clothes etc. of deceased held proper. (SC) PLD 1966 SC 223 Muhammad Sadiq.
Conviction u/Ss. 406 and 420, PPC on same facts is illegal. The offence u/Ss. 406 and 420, PPC are altogether different. Appeal allowed. PLJ 1991 Cr.C. (Lah.) 116 Muhammad Yousaf.
Altering the conviction in appeal from section 302 for an offence against property is not legal. (DB) 1926 Lah. 691 Gaus v. Emp.
Misjoinder of charges, offences committed independently. When two persons accepted bribe independently they could not be tried jointly. Irregularity could not be cured under section 537, Cr.P.C. De novo trial ordered. 1977. P.Cr. LJ 145 Ishtiaq Ali,.
Offences not of same kind. Accused tried and sentenced at one trial for theft, forgery and attempting to cheat in respect of one document and also for theft forgery and cheating in respect of another. Held that six offences punishable with different punishments under different sections of Penal Code and the offences not being of same kind,, the trial was illegal PLD 1952 Lah. 34 Muhammad Hafeez. v. Crown.
Accused charged under section 302/149, PPC but convicted under section 302, PPC. No prejudice accused. Trial held to be legal. (SC) PLD 1956 SC 440 Muhammad Anwar.
Joint trial of different accused for offence u/S. 298-C committed at different places at different times, held, joint trial illegal not curable u/S. 537, Cr.P.C PLJ 1991 Cr.C. (Lah.) 465 Sh. Muhammad Aslam etc.
Joint trial of two accused, one of them may be alternately charged under section 236. Cr.P.C. with another offence. (SC) PLD 1956 FC 147 Bashir Muhammad v. Crown.
Joint trial. In a joint trial it is very necessary to keep clearly separated the evidence against each of the accused. (PC) PLD 1947 PC 136 Joseph Connell.
Joint trial is illegal, of two sets of persons, one or the other set of whom was alleged to have committed the murder. (DB) PLD 1954 Lah. 183. Ali v. Crown.
Joint trial of two sets of accused committed separately to Sessions, one under section 302, PPC and the other under section 109 and 120-B PPC read with section 302 held to be legal (FC) PLD 1955 FC 113 Ibrahim Phak v. Crown.
Joint trial of two or more persons under different offences of same kind. Offences must have been committed jointly by all accused. (DB) PLD 1952 Lah. 185 Noor Din v. Crown.
Charge of murder and illegal possession of arms when so linked together as to form part of the same transaction can be tried together. (FC) PLD 1951 FC 114 Sadiq v. Crown.
Not same transaction. Simple injuries caused to F's brothers a day earlier. F murdered on the following day. Not same transaction. (FC) PLD 1958 FC 129 Qadar Dad v. Sultan Bibi etc.
Same transaction. Community of purposes, design and action necessary, Sub-Registrar and Moharrir accused at one trial of independent acts of bribe taking in the course of registration of same document. Joint trial illegal. Question of prejudice to the accused irrelevant. (SC) PLD 1958 SC (Pak.) 131 Muhammad Mosadder.
"To be determined by reference to initial accusation and not to subsequent charge. Five accused concerned in murder and seventeen including these five concerned in causing injuries to prosecution witnesses after termination of first incident. Joint trial not allowed by Law. (DB PLD 1953 Lah. 262 Muhammad Khan v. Crown.
Community of purpose or design and continuity of action sine quo non for treating separate acts as constituting one transaction. Collision between two vehicles proceeding in same direction and killing one pedestrian. Each driver acting independent of other and cases put up by two directly in conflict with each other. Joint trial bad. Question of prejudice to the accused irrelevant. (SC) PLD 1964 SC 20, Noor Ahmad.
"More than one accused in pursuance of one single conspiracy committing different offences on different occasions, held offences, committed in course of "same transaction", joinder of charges not illegal, (DB) PLD 1962 Lah. 244, State v. Muhammad Yunus.
Omission in conducting proceedings or framing charge, unless they cause failure of justice are curable u/s 537 Cr. P.C Mere wrong mention of particular provision/section of law does not affect validity of charge. PLJ 1993 Cr.C. (Quetta) 177, (DB), Muhammad Aslam.
Six items of misappropriation cited jointly in the charge framed u/s 409 PPC showing total amount misappropriated. held, single charge for offence u/s 409 PPC to that extent was sustainable particularly where the accused was no prejudiced and no such objection was raised by him in the trial Court. 1992 SCMR 1583, Shah Nawaz 1986 P.Cr. LJ 1236, Ghulam Muhammad Lutfee distinguished.
Misappropriation of 18 items of money. Specification of gross sum in charge enough. Charge deemed to be of one offence. PLD 1960 Kar. 899 Rahim Bux.
When Ss. 409 & 477-A PPC had arisen from same transaction as falsification was in consequence of six items misappropriated by accused. One joint charge was framed by the trial Court covering both offences and two separate charges were not framed which was an error pertaining to offences or particulars of charge and was curable u/S. 537 Cr. P.C. as no prejudice was caused to the accused or failure of justice occasioned. 1992 SCMR 1583, Shah Nawaz.
Cheating charge under section 420, PPC. Manner of deception not stated, charge, held, defective. (SC) PLD 1957 SC (Pak.) 257.
Particulars of offence not stated in charge. "Death following injuries caused by accused" trial is not vitiated. (SC) PLD 1958 SC (Pak.) 383, Hazart Jamil.
Seven acts of misappropriation charged jointly against two accused, along with one additional act against one accused only without any evidence of conspiracy, abetment or sameness of transaction. Misjoinder of persons. Trial vitiated. PLD 1957 Lah. 461, Tufail Hussain.
Nature of injuries showing no intention to kill All injuries simple except one charge amended from 307/149, PPC to 325/149, PPC. 1975 P.Cr. LJ 560 Jamal Din etc.
Composite charge for two murders and murderous assault is curable but recording one conviction and one sentence is not curable for non-compliance with Sec. 367, Cr. P.C. (DB) NLR 1988 Cr. 587, Saleh Muhammad etc.
Stolen property recovered at one time belonging to three persons, stolen at three different occasions, held 3 separate trials and 3 convictions are not maintainable. PLJ 1991 Cr.C. (Lah) 115. Manzoor Hussain. PLD 1955 FC 183 ref.
Criminal breach of trust and falsification of accounts, that is offences u/Ss. 409 and 477-A PPC, are offences of the same kind particularly when not committed in the same transaction and to join several items of misappropriation with corresponding offence of falsification of accounts, is therefore not permissible. Such joinder of charges is illegal being in contravention of Ss. 234 & 235. If two offences of misappropriation and falsification of accounts are committed in the same transaction in one series of acts then rule laid down in sec. 235 will apply. 1992 SCMR 1583, Shah. Nawaz.
Errors committed in stating either offence or particulars of charge or omission in such behalf are not material unless accused is misled by such errors or omissions and failure of justice is occasioned. 1992 SCMR 1583, Shah Nawaz.