Alteration of charge

2025 PCrLJ 1546 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Judicial Precedent

Ss.227 & 347Alteration of chargeScope

Application of the petitioner for alteration of charge and for framing the same under S.324 P.P.C was dismissed by the Trial Court

Validity

Record reflected that the Trial Court framed the charge under Ss.337-F(iii) and 34, P.P.C., however the petitioner filed an application under S.227, Cr.P.C, for alteration of the charge by framing the same under S.324, P.P.C

Trial Court rejected the same with the observation that the ingredients of S.324, P.P.C were not attracted and transferred the case to the Court of Judicial Magistrate for trial

During trial when the Court found the case was triable by the inferior Court, then the Court could transfer to such Court

Provisions of S.347, Cr.P.C. empowered the Judicial Magistrate to try the case before pronouncement of final judgment, if it was found that the offences so leveled were not triable by him, as such, he could transfer the case file to the superior Court

Rule of prudence/propriety demanded that where two Courts had concurrent jurisdiction, then the case is to be tried by the Court of inferior jurisdiction

Thus, the Trial Court had rightly transferred the case to the Court of Judicial Magistrate, as such, the impugned order did not suffer from mis-reading, non-reading and misappreciation of law and material illegality or irregularity to warrant interference by the High Court

Petition being devoid of merits was dismissed.

2022 MLD 1716 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Judicial Precedent

S.227Alteration of chargeScopeUnder S.227, Cr.P.C the Trial Court was empowered to alter the charge at any time either on application or on its own

Charge once framed, would not become irreversible, even the court could alter the charge before pronouncement of judgment.

2021 PCrLJ 608 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 227, 233, 234, 235 & 239Alteration of chargeSeparate charge for distinct offencesThree offences of same kind within year may be charged togetherTrial for more than one offence

Prosecution assailed order passed by Trial Court whereby its application under S. 227, Cr.P.C. for alteration of the consolidated charge in two different criminal cases was dismissed

Incidents in two different FIR were neither of the same kind nor had been committed during the course of same transaction, therefore, the same could not be tried jointly

Trial Court while passing the order of joint trial of both the cases and framing a consolidated/joint charge had committed an illegality which could not be countenanced

Section 233, Cr.P.C., provided that for every distinct offence of which any person was accused, there would be a separate charge and every such charge would be tried separately except in the cases mentioned in Ss. 234, 235 & 239, Cr.P.C.

Impugned order was set aside and the Trial Court was directed to try the cases separately on separate charges.

2020 YLR 2452 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 227Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 324, 403, 504 & 34

Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, misappropriation of property, intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace, common intention

Appreciation of evidence

Alteration of charge

Application for altering of charge on the ground that the charge was not precise and relevant in regard to particular details of prosecution case against accused and had caused prejudice to understand accusation and set up his defence accordingly

After separation of trial of applicant, he ought to have been confronted only with his role in the charge, which per prosecution story was of having injured only deceased, and not describing generally all accused injuring all victims

Record showed that describing individual role of applicant in isolation of the incident in the charge would change the entire context of the incident making it difficult to understand the actual account of the incident

Serial order with which name of each accused followed respectively by name of each victim had been mentioned in first portion of the charge had in clear terms conveyed which accused was charged for injuring which victim

In the last portion of the charge "you" referred to all accused in same chronological order i.e. applicant, "Y" and "B"(co-accused persons) as had been mentioned in first part of the charge

Whole description of the incident as reported was mentioned in the charge

Defence tried to persuade that word "you" referred to the applicant only and he had been saddled with injuring all the victims, which was not with respect to him

No ambiguity existed in regard to role of applicant in the charge, which might be considered to have misled him

No case for interference in the impugned order was made out and the application, therefore, was dismissed.

2019 PCrLJN 155 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 302Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 227Qatl-i-amdappreciation of evidenceAlteration of charge

Application for reframing of charge on the ground that accused was major at the time of commission of offence, but Trial Court had erred under the law at the time of framing of charge by holding the accused as a juvenile, i.e. 15/16 years of age, which was dismissed

Accused was charged in FIR under S. 302, P.P.C. with the allegations that he fired at the complainant and he succumbed to the injuries

Accused was arrested by the local police on the same day and according to the card of arrest, his age was 19 years

Record showed that accused was examined by Medical Board, which held the age of accused to be 19-21 years

Identity Card of accused issued by the NADRA showed his date of birth as 12.03.1998

College card of the accused also showed his date of birth as 12.03.1998

Circumstances and record clearly suggested that at the time of commission of offence, accused was major i.e. over 18 years of age and thus, should not have been tried by the Juvenile Court under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000

Revision petition was allowed by setting aside the impugned order and the case of the accused was remitted to the ordinary court for de novo trial in accordance with law.

2018 MLD 469 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 238, 227 & 535Alteration of chargeError, correction of

If the accused was charged for a major offence but the same was not proved, accused could be convicted for a minor offence, as evidence produced by the prosecution so warranted

Section 238, Cr.P.C. empowered the court to convict the accused for a minor offence though charged for a major offence.

2015 PCrLJ 502 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 227 & 561-APenal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.364 & 365

Kidnapping or abducting in order to murder, kidnapping or abducting with intent secretly and wrongfully to confine person

Alteration of charge

Quashing of order/petition

Application of the complainant for alteration of charge from S.365, P.P.C. to S.364, P.P.C., having been turned down by the courts below, complainant had filed petition under S.561-A, Cr.P.C. for quashing of orders of two courts below

FIR clearly demonstrated that it would attract penal provision of S.364, P.P.C., triable by sessions court only and not 365, P.P.C., because it was not a simple case of abduction for wrongful confinement, nor there was allegation of wrongful confinement against accused

Deceased was drowned in the river

Neither the Investigating Officer had attended to that aspect of the case, nor the Magistrate during investigation and framing charge had considered said aspect

Magistrate simply followed the section of the law, which was inserted by the Police as per their own whims

Magistrate was not bound by the opinion of the Police, but was required to form his own opinion with regard to the offence so made out in the FIR, and the evidence so collected

Under provisions of S.227, Cr.P.C., charge could be altered or added at any time before pronouncement of the judgment

Delayed submission of application for alteration of charge, was no ground for refusal of said application, if the case for alteration was made out

Impugned orders of the courts below were set aside, and case was remitted to the Magistrate to do the needful, in circumstances.

2014 YLR 1473 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Judicial Precedent

Ss. 537, 238, 227, 225, 232 & 535Alteration of chargeError, correction of

When accused was charged for a major offence which entailed a longer term of punishment, but a minor offence was proved, which entailed a shorter term of punishment, he could be convicted of minor offence; but an accused charged for minor offence, could not be convicted of a major offence, subject to the limitation of S.227, Cr.P.C.

Every conceivable type of error and irregularity referable to a charge that could possibly arise, could be cured

Whatever the irregularity could be it was not to be regarded as fatal, unless there was prejudice.

2014 YLR 2207 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss.186 & 506Drugs Act (XXXI of 1976), Ss. 27 (3) & (4)Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.227 & 243Obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions and criminal intimidationAppreciation of evidenceAlteration of chargeConviction on confessionPrinciple

Initially, when charge was framed, accused pleaded not guilty but after eight months charge was altered then accused pleaded guilty and he was convicted by Trial Court on his confession

Validity

Even if accused had pleaded guilty during the course of trial, in addition to his plea, independent evidence should have been gathered by the Court to arrive at just conclusion

High Court set aside conviction and sentence awarded by Trial Court and remanded the matter to Trial Court for decision afresh after recording of evidence

Appeal was allowed in circumstances.

2014 PCrLJ 1071 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

S. 227Judicial Magistrate, powers ofScopeAlteration of charge

Judicial Magistrate was not empowered to include any section, which was exclusively triable by any other Special Court by exercising powers vested in him under S. 227, Cr.P.C.