1968 P Cr (PLP)

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 239(d)‑Joinder of charges‑Accused committing murder with unlicensed pistol and charged under Ss. 148, 302/149, P.P.C. and S. 13, Arms Ordinance, 1965‑Offences constituting same transaction‑Can 6e tried at one trial as envisaged 6y S. 239 (d), Cr. P. C.‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 148 & 302/149‑Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.

13. Khazan v. Emperor A I R 1937 Lab. 793 ref. Raja Muhammad Muzaffar for Petitioner. Ch. Muhammad Ashraf for the State. In my order of admission, dated 19th January 1968, the petitioner had taken exception to the legality of a joint trial for offences under sections 148, 302/149 F. P. C. and section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, being in contravention of the provision contained in section 234,Cr. P. C., under which not more than three offences of the same kind committed within the space of twelve months, could be tried at one trial.

2. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is wholly misconceived, inasmuch as in the instant case we are not dealing with offences of the same kind but those committed in the same transaction for which a single trial can clearly be spelt out from the provision contained in section 239(d), Cr. P. C. The limitation imposed on the trial of more than three offences of the same kind would obviously be irrelevant to the instant case. In the instant case it needs hardly any argument to show that Muhammad Amin accused was allegedly armed with a pistol which was used by him during the commission of the offence resulting in the death of Khadim Hussain. This pistol was recovered from his possession in the course of investigation, for which could not produce a licence. Obviously, therefore, all the offences under sections 148, 302/ 149, P. P. C. and section 13 of the Arms Ordinance constitute the same transaction and as such the accused could clearly be tried at one trial for all these offences as envisaged by section 239 (d), Cr. P. C. This position which can clearly be spelt out from the language of the provision itself, is not devoid of authorities. A I R 1937 Lah. 793 may be cited as one of them. A case is quite conceivable in which during the investigation of a case an accused‑person may be found to be in possession of an unlicensed arm which was not used by him in the commission of the principal offences i.e. murder, decoity, etc. In such an event, the offence under the Arms Ordinance would be an altogether separate offence not constituting an offence of the same transaction. But the facts of the instance case are wholly distinguishable and are fully covered by the provision contained in section 239 (d), Cr. P. C., to which the authority cited earlier is applicable with full force.

3. In consequence, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed.