Charge

Where a court has ordered that a charge should be framed then it is not open to the successor Judge to sit over the order of his predecessor and quash the proceedings.

Trial Court awarded enhanced sentence to the accused because of his previous conviction but record revealed that Trial Court had awarded sentence to the accused without complying with the provisions of Ss. 221(7), 265-I(1), Cr.P.C. and also by ignoring the requirements of S. 265-I(2), Cr.P.C.

Section 221(7), Cr.P.C. provided that to hold conviction, the fact, date and place of previous conviction had to be stated in the charge at any time before the sentence was passed whereas provisions of S. 265-I, Cr.P.C. showed that if a charge was framed against accused regarding his previous conviction and the said accused replied to the charge in affirmative, the court could pass a sentence upon him in accordance with law, but if he replied in negative, the court could take evidence with regard to previous conviction as alleged in the charge, record finding thereon and then sentence the accused in accordance with law

Question as to what was required to prove the previous conviction of a convict was answered in S. 511, Cr.P.C.

In the present case, no question with regard to previous conviction was put to the accused during his statement recorded under S. 342, Cr.P.C.

Trial Court had inflicted enhanced sentence upon the accused without adopting the prescribed procedure.

Where accused pleaded guilty to the charge then his plea was to be recorded under S. 265-E, Cr.P.C. and then the Court under subsection (2) could in its discretion convict the accused

Use of word "may" prima facie suggested that it was not necessary or mandatory for the Court that in every case accused was to be convicted of the offence for which he was charged, on the basis of his admission to guilt

Circumstances of the case had to be taken into consideration.

Suspicions and moral certainty, no matter howsoever strong or well-placed could not derive home the charge in the absence of legal evidence.

Visual observation was not the only method to establish a criminal charge.

If a charge would give a complete notice and knowledge of allegations against accused, charged for allegations, then plea of defects in charge would not stand, particularly when such plea of prejudice was not taken during course of trial, where the Trial Court, was always competent to remove the defects by framing fresh/amended charge.

Altered charge was framed on application of complainant and accused persons, moved an application under S.231, Cr.P.C. with a request to recall prosecution witnesses who were already examined for further cross-examination; with further prayer to summon Civil Surgeon to produce the record of Medical Board

Such application of accused persons was dismissed

Validity

Held, since in the amended charge not only the sections of law had been added, but there had come an allegation of causing injuries to one person, who was not named in the earlier charge

Even, if the court did not resort to the provisions of Ss.228, 229, Cr.P.C., yet Trial Court was not justified in declining the request of the defence to recall and re-examine the two already examined witnesses; which re-examination would be with reference to such alteration/addition

As regards the request of accused to summon Civil Surgeon, defence would have full opportunity for such a request within the meaning of S.265-F, Cr.P.C. at the conclusion of prosecution case

When the court did not resort to the earlier provisions of Ss.228, 229, Cr.P.C., accused and prosecutor, be allowed an opportunity to move an application for summoning, re-examining witnesses, who already stood examined, so that accused or prosecutor could not come with plea of having not been given an opportunity of fair trial, because in Ss.228 and 229 whole discretion lay with the court

Chapter XIX, Cr.P.C. (of the charge) had cast a mandatory obligation to strictly adhere to the requirements and procedure, so explained in that Chapter

Trial Court had failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by S.231, Cr.P.C., by which Trial Court was required to have allowed the request of the defence to re-summon and re-examine the already examined witness

Petition was partly allowed to the extent of re-examination and re-summoning of prosecution witnesses, already examined

Such re-examination must be for limited purpose with reference to alteration or addition in the amended/altered charge only.

Object of the charge was to enable accused to know the precise accusation against him, which he was required to meet before evidence was adduced by the prosecution against him.

Burden to prove all ingredients of charge lay on prosecution and it never would shift on accused who was entitled to stand on innocence assigned to him under law till it was dislodged

Where defence plea, on its face, appeared to be sham prosecution was not absolved of the duty to prove its case

Court while deciding a case, should, at first, evaluate prosecution evidence and see as to whether it had the capacity to bring home charge against accused and if answer was in affirmative, only then plea of accused along with defence evidence, if any, could be weighed so as to reach at a definite conclusion

Court in order to award or maintain conviction had to base the findings on evidence and that too having come from an unimpeachable source.

S. 221-ChargeMere failure to establish allegations contained in charge-Does not render charge itself defective.

-Charge-Immovable property made security for payment of money-Whether security in mortgage or charge depends upon intention underlying transaction.

Charge What Is. A charge comes into existence when property of one person is by act of parties or operation of law made security for the payment of money to another and the transaction does not amount to mortgage.

Several charges-Finding not given in respect of one charge-Accused deemed to have been acquitted of such charge.

Charge Where the charge as framed was defective inasmuch as It mentioned an attempt to smuggle silver bullion to India which mention was only speculative, whereas, the accused were avowedly taking the silver out of the notified area to a place within Pakistan, which, in itself was an offence under section 3 of the Prevention of Smuggling Act, 1952, and no prejudice to the accused was established;

Death following injuries caused by accused-Trial not vitiated-Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 225 & 537-Pakistan Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302/34.

Offence under S. 124-A, P. P.C. Objectionable portions of speech-Specification in charge, though desirable not obligatory-Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Chap. XIX.

Charge Charge-Same speech falling under offence of sedition as well as under that of effecting a public mischief-Alternative charges, whether could be made into separate substantive charges

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 233, 235 & 236.

Principal accused and abettor-Only one consolidated charge should be framed-Importance of framing correct charge-Duty of Special Judge-Charge framed and signed by Public Prosecutor not in order-Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1948 as amended up to date.