Joint Trial

2025 PLD 177 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

Ss. 6, 7, 8, 9, 11 & 30 [as substituted by Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2023]Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 235Trial of more than one offenceJoint trialPrinciple

Not all offences under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016, are P.P.C. offences and they have to be seen or tried within the ambit of Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016, or cybercrimes

Test of S. 235, Cr.P.C., has to be met to be tried jointly and Court has to verify whether they occur from same transaction or not and whether it comes under the ambit of Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016 or not.

2017 PCrLJ 174 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 365-AAnti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 7(e), 17 & 21-MActs of Terrorism: kidnapping for ransom or hostage-takingAppreciation of evidenceBenefit of doubtPower of Anti-Terrorism Court with respect of other offencesJoint trial

Anti-Terrorism Court had not charged the accused persons for the offence of carrying illegal fire arm weapon with them and attacking on the police at the time of encounter, arrest and rescue of the abductee in terms of Ss. 17 & 21-M of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997; said fact was enough to believe that the prosecution had failed to discharge burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt

Prosecutor offered no justification as to why the cases under Arms Ordinance and police encounter had not been jointly challaned in the Anti-Terrorism Court in terms of Ss. 17 & 21-M of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997

No proof of the police encounter existed, as neither of the parties had sustained any injury during 10/15 minutes' cross firing between the accused and police party, nor were the police vehicles damaged by any fire-arm shot

Police party which chased the accused was missing, and till to date said police party had not reported at the police station from where they had gone under instruction of their superiors to apprehend the accused

Police had even failed to prove the departure of the police party from the police stations on the date of recovery of the abductee, as the relevant entry in the police record to that effect had not been produced in evidence without any justification

Investigation Officer never visited the place of the encounter and the recovery of weapons and the abductee

Police had neither recovered the empties of the weapons from the place of encounter, nor had the weapons been sealed properly

Prosecution witness/Investigation Officer had neither produced any memo of the place of police encounter nor any ballistic report of the weapons recovered by the police nor empties of any weapon used by the accused; withholding such important pieces of evidence confirmed that right from the beginning, the story of recovery of the abductee from the captivity of the accused was false

Memo of arrest of the accused and recovery of the abductee had been neither countersigned by the abductee nor witnessed by him

Abductee, at the first instance, had refused to identify the accused in the court, and checking his statement, he deposed that the accused persons were like the same person present in the Court

Complainant had disowned his further statement recorded by the police as to demand of ransom by an unknown person through mobile phone calls; the prosecution had not produced any cogent evidence such mobile data of the cell phones to substantiate the story regarding demand of ransom

Prosecution had not offered any explanation for delay in recording further statement of the complainant after three days of the release of his son and statement of the abductee after twelve days of his release

Belated statements of the prosecution witnesses had no value in the eye of law

Prosecution had failed to prove charges under the Arms Ordinance and police encounter, and without commission of said offences, offence under S. 365-A, P.P.C. could not be said to have been committed

None from the raiding party had been mentioned in the list of witnesses to confirm that they were also present at time of the police encounter

Accused persons present had already been acquitted from the charges of possessing illegal weapons and attack on the police party

Abductee had neither signed the memo of his recovery nor was his cell phone and its number was mentioned in the Mashirnama

High Court, giving benefit of doubts, acquitted all the accused persons

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

2014 MLD 1428 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 239Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302, 148 & 149Qatl-e-amd, rioting, common objectJoint trialCriminal case was registered against accused and other six co-accusedOne of said co-accused was proclaimed offender, and charge against accused and other five co-accused was framedTrial continued and during the same substantial prosecution evidence was recorded

Proclaimed offender, thereafter was arrested; and challaned but Trial Court had separately charge-sheeted said co-accused and his five co-accused

Validity

Accused as well as his co-accused persons were involved in the case, and mandate of law on the subject was that they all should be charge-sheeted and tried together

As all accused persons were facing the charge for similar offence during same occurrence/transaction, as per provisions of S.239, Cr.P.C., joint trial was required

Impugned order passed by the court below was set aside, with direction to the Trial Court to carry on the joint trial of all accused who were available before it.

2013 YLR 548 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss.233 & 239Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 420Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of propertySeparate charges for distinct offencesJoint trialScope

When the panel of accused, time, transaction and place were different; and separate challans had been submitted in respect of each F.I.R., then the joint trial of accused was illegal and violation of S.239, Cr.P.C.

Trial Court had rightly framed separate charges and tried the accused persons for the offences in accordance with the provisions of S.233, Cr.P.C.

2012 PLD 119 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 21-M'& 28Joint trial

Anti-Terrorism Court while trying any offence under Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, could also try any other offence with which accused, could under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, be charged, at the same trial, if the offence was connected with such other offence

If, in the course of any trial under Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, it was found that accused had committed any other offence under the said Act, or any other law for the time being in force,. the court could convict accused for such other offence and pass any sentence authorized by Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, or as the case could be, such other law for the punishment thereof

Provisions of S.21-M of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, did not give any power to Anti-Terrorism Court to withdraw any case pending within or outside its jurisdiction before a regular court functioning under administrative control of the High Court

Provisions of S.28 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 had given power to the Chief Justice of High Court, if he considered it expedient so to do in the interest of justice; or where the convenience or safety of the witnesses or the safety of accused so required, transfer any case from one Anti-Terrorism Court to another Anti-Terrorism Court, within or outside the area

Anti-Terrorism Court to which a case was transferred, would proceed with the case from the stage at which it was pending immediately before such transfer and it would not be bound to cancel and hear any witness, who had given evidence and could act on the evidence already recorded: provided that nothing contained in S.28 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, would affect the powers of Presiding Officer of the Special Court to call any witness as was available under the law

Anti-Terrorism Court, in circumstances, had no authority and jurisdiction under Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 to withdraw a case pending before the court of Session

Such powers were vested in the High Court.

2010 YLR 1384 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 239, 235, 234 & 233Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302, 337-A(ii), 337-F(i), 337-F(ii), 337-F(v), 148 & 149Qatl-e-amd and attempt to commit qatl-e-­amdJoint trial

Counsel for accused had contended that persons accused of two different occurrences having two different Sets, could neither be challaned together nor they could be tried together; as two accused persons had been charged for committing murder of the deceased, whereas remaining accused had no nexus with the first episode of the occurrence; that in the second episode two persons from the complainant side were injured, and the venues of both the incidents were totally different; that there was distance of five furlongs in between venues of both the occurrence; that second episode had taken place at the time of removal of deceased in injured condition at a distance of about five furlongs from the place of first episode of the occurrence and that in the second episode two persons from side of the complainant were injured by accused persons

Complainant had witnessed both the episodes

Accused of second episode were real brothers of persons who were accused of first episode

Accused of first occurrence was real nephew of accused of second occurrence

Validity

Section 239(d), Cr.P.C. provided for a joint trial of two or more persons for different offences, which formed an exception to the primary rule enacted in S.233, Cr.P.C.-Object of the exceptions noted in S.233, Cr.P.C. and embodied amongst that in S.239(d), Cr.P.C. was to avoid duplication of proceedings

Bath the sets of accused were related inter se with each other and Possibility of their common intention could not be ruled out

Both the occurrences in circumstances were committed in the course of same transaction so as to warrant their joint trial within the meaning of S.239(d), Cr. P. C.

Contention that joint trial was hit by misjoinder of charges and persons in contravention of Ss.233 and 239, Cr.P.C., had no force or substance

Record had shown that the prosecution had produced nine witnesses in support of the case and prima facie same had connected accused with the offence

Trial Court, in circumstances had not acted against the law.

2010 PCrLJ 1988 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss.9(a)(iv)(v)(vi) & 17 (d)Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 403Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts. 13 & 199Constitutional petitionQuashing of referenceDouble jeopardyJoint trial

One reference was filed against accused for acquiring assets beyond known source of his income and in that reference he was convicted and sentenced by Trial Court

Later on two more references were filed against accused which included the allegations already contained in earlier reference

Accused contended that it was a case of double jeopardy as he had already been tried by the court on the charges

Validity

Where number of offences had arisen out of one and the same transaction and same set of facts, the same should be tried jointly as there was commonality of purpose and, therefore, could become a cause for separate charge in a separate reference which would be violative of section 403 Cr.P.C. and Art. 13 of the Constitution

NAB had contended that fraud was result of misuse of authority in former reference against accused and charge in subsequent references also included commission of fraud by hint

Accused having been tried on such charge and convicted too, therefore, no separate reference in respect of such charge could justifiably be filed and accused could not be charged under the same

High Court quashed subsequent references filed by NAB against accused

Petition was allowed in circumstances.

2009 SCMR 1133 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 302(b), 364 & 392Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S.7Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.43Re-appraisal of evidenceLast seen evidenceExtra judicial confessionJoint trialStatement of one accused against otherIndependent witnessBoth the accused along with two unknown persons were seen boarding taxi of deceased from taxi standLater on dead body of deceased was found on pointation of one accused who made extra judicial confessionDeath sentence awarded to both the accused was maintained by High CourtValidity

Presence of prosecution witness at taxi stand where he had seen deceased last time was established in cross-examination as he used to work as auto-electrician and used to repair taxis etc.

As such the prosecution witness was independent witness bearing no relationship at all with complainant or deceased except that he knew the latter, who had given truthful and confidence inspiring narration of incident i.e. boarding of deceased's car by two accused as well as two other unknown persons and their departure

Under cross-examination nothing could be extracted from such prosecution witness except for his denial of having informed complainant regarding last seen evidence, whereas he had stated so in his statement before police, which was a minor discrepancy and could be ignored

Prosecution witness had no reason whatsoever to implicate both the accused falsely as no enmity had been remotely suggested by accused in their cross-examination

Testimony of two prosecution witnesses inspired confidence and could be relied upon

Accused, who made extra judicial confession pad fully implicated other accused in his confession before prosecution witness which was approved by Supreme Court

Where, in a joint trial, confession of one accused was proved, under Art.43 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, the same might be taken into consideration as circumstantial evidence against co-accused

Extra­judicial confession of one accused as well last seen evidence was corroborated by arrest of accused along with car belonging to deceased which was proved by prosecution through evidence of recovery witness

Under cross-examination nothing could be gleaned from recovery witness as to alleged false arrest of one accused and recovery of car in question

Supreme Court maintained death sentence awarded to both the accused by two courts below

Appeal was dismissed.

1983 SCMR 728 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

.

S. 74(2), (5)-Documentary evidence-Public document-Document does not become a public document merely because it is registered document not covered by S. 74(5)-Cannot be proved by production of certified copies thereof.

1970 SCMR 718 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 239-Joint trail Accused H caught red handed while cutting crop of another and on latter's alarm several persons assembling and taking accused to a hujra for inquiry-Accused G confessing his that accused A and S were also cutting Accused A appearing and demanding release of accused G and on refusal starting gunfire killing one and injuring others-Contention that joint trial of accused G on theft charge and of accused A on murder charge was illegal, both offences being not part of same transaction-Transaction, held, involved all three accused commencing with capture of G and ending with shooting by A and there being community of purpose as well as continuity of action in events, joint trial of all three accused was not illegal-Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302 & 379.

1969 PLD 56 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR Judicial Precedent

Ss. 239 & 540Joint trial-(Murder case)-Police putting up challan against two accused, but subsequent complaint filed with trial Judge naming eight persons as accused including two mentioned in police challan-Procedure-Trial Judge to take up complaint case and examine witnesses mentioned in police challan, as Court witnesses, if not already examined on complainant's behalf.

1958 PLD 1052 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Joint Trial

Test to determine illegality or otherwise of Punjab Excise Act (I of 1914), S. 61-Opium Act (1 of 1878), S. 9.

1958 PLD 449 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Joint Trial -Permissible on basis of accusation made against accused-Subsequent discovery that allegations were not established

Does not invalidate trial-Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 239.

1958 PLD 24 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR Judicial Precedent

Joint Trial -Offences under Ss. 302 Qt 323, Penal Code (XLV of 1860) committed in course of same transaction-Joint trial legal.

1955 PLD 70 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Joint Trial Joint trial of a member of charges with regard to some of which it appears that they should not he tried with "the others _Not evidence produced relevant to charges which could be tried together.