P (PLP)

ABDUR RAHMAN, J.‑This is a petition for special leave to appeal by five petitioners, one of whom, Sadiq, had been convicted by the Sessions Judge, Lahore, at Sheikhupura, under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code and sentenced to death, while r he others were convicted under different sections of the Code and under the Arms Act, and sentenced to various terms of imprison ment which were to run concurrently. They preferred an appeal to the High Court of Judicature at Lahore without success and the sentence' of death was confirmed. Having failed in their appeal, they have come up to this Court as a matter of course and asked for special leave. These petitions are now being filed without any discrimination, though it has been repeatedly pointed out that this is not a Court of criminal appeal and that it cannot possibly be asked to interfere unless a particular case comes within the well defined rules of practice laid down by this Court repeatedly in a number of cases, and eventually in a considered judgment in Sarfaraz Khan 's case, 3 P. L. D. (1951) F. C.

41. It is unnecessary to recapitulate the facts which' had held to the petitioners prosecution and conviction. Suffice it to say that 14 persons were prosecuted to start with, out of whom five only were convicted by the Session's Judge. Mahmud Abroad, Nemat and Muhammad Din, who had also received injuries at the time when the assault was alleged to have been committed by the accused, were examined on behalf of the prosecution and believed both by the Sessions judge and the learned Judges of the High Court in appeal. Since this Court cannot be expected to review the evidence led on behalf of the prosecution afresh the fate of this petition was or should have been, at any rate, anticipated. Counsel for the petitioner probably realised this himself and urged that the trial was vitiated on account of misjoinder of charges, for, in his submission, the offence under the Arms Act could not be tried along with the other offences for which the accused had been prosecuted. There is, however, no force in this contention, for the offence of having been in possession of the spear, Exhibit P. 1, was so connected with the offences committed by the petitioners as to form part of the same transaction, and the accused could have, therefore, been legally charged and tried at one trial for all the offences committed by them during the same transaction. Moreover, the objection of this nature cannot be seriously pressed before this Court unless it could be shown that the misjoinder of charges had in fact prejudiced the accused and occasioned failure of justice. In the absence of that essential ingredient, it would be a mere technicality and could not have been pressed with advantage. No suggestion as to the accused having suffered from any prejudice on that ground was even put forward by the counsel. For the above reasons, the petition fails and is dismissed. A. H. Petition dismissed.