MAJID ALI KHAN vs STATE and 14 others
This criminal revision petition challenges an order passed by the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Multan, which directed the joint trial of three separate FIRs (No. 340/2011, No. 6/2012, and No. 53/2012). The petitioner, who is an accused in FIR No. 340/2011 but not in the other two cases, argued that a joint trial involving him in cases where he is not an accused is legally impermissible. The core legal question was whether a joint trial is permissible under Section 234 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, when the accused persons in the respective cases are different. The Court held that the impugned order was a patent illegality and violated the statutory requirements for joint trials. The Court established that for a joint trial to be valid under Section 234, the accused in all cases must be the same, the offences must be of the same kind, and the number of cases must not exceed three. Finding these conditions unsatisfied, the Court set aside the impugned order and directed separate trials.
- What are the essential requirements for conducting a joint trial under Section 234 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
- Is a joint trial permissible when the accused persons in the respective FIRs are different?
- Can a court order a joint trial for cases where the accused is not named in all the FIRs?
- Section 234, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 379, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 380, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 4.11.2013, passed by the learned Special Judge, Anti- Corruption, Multan whereby joint trial of FIR No, 340/201 1 registered at Police Station Jalalpur Pirwala, district Multan and FIRs No. 6/2012 and 53/2012, both registered at Police Station Anti Corruption Establishment, Multan has been ordered.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in FIRs No. 06 of 2012 and 53 of 2012, petitioner is neither an accused nor he has any concern with the occurrences, alleged in the said matters but erroneously through the impugned order , joint trial of the petitioner , in the above said matters has also been ordered which is not acceptable under the law .
3. Arguments heard. Record perused.
4. Section 234 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 provides joint trials of cases. Said Sections reads as under:--
234. Three offences of same kind within one year may be charged together . (i) When a person is accused of more offences than one of the same kind committed within the space of twelve months from the first to the last of such offences, whether in respect of the same person or not, he may be charged with, and tried at one trial for, and number of them not exceeding three.
(2) Offences are of the same kind when they are punishable with the same amount of punishment under the same Sections of the Pakistan Penal Code or of any special or local law: Provides that, for the purpose of this section, an offence under Section 379 of the Pakistan Penal Code shall be deemed to be an offence of the same kind as an offence punishable under Section 380 of the said Code, and that an offence punishable under any Sections of the Pakistan Penal Code or of any special or local law shall be deemed to be an offence of the same kind as an attempt to commit such offence, when such an attempt is an offence.
Plain reading of the above mentioned provision indicates that joint trial of cases could be held under the following circumstances:--
1. Accused in all the cases should be the same.
2. Offences should be of same kind.
3. Number of cases should not exceed three.
5. It has been observe that in the above mentioned case FIR No, 340/201 1 there are fourteen accused, including the present petitioner . Whereas, in the other FIRs Nos. 6/2012 and 53/2012, the petitioner is not an accused. Joint trial under the above mentioned provisio n would only be permissible, if the above mentioned requirements are fulfilled. Applying the above mentioned criteria to the facts of the instant matter , it is observed that when the panel of accused is different and separate challans have been submitted in respect of each FIR then the joint trial of accused is a patent illegality and violation of Section 234, Cr.P.C. Reliance in this respect may be made to the case of "Amjad Ali and another V ersus The State and another" ( 2013 YLR 548 ).
6. For the foregoing reasons, 'the situation in hand does not qualify the above mentioned requirements, hence joint trial is not permissible. Consequently , the instant revision petition is allowed , the impugned order is set-aside with a direction that trial of case FIR No, 340/201 1 be conducted separately , whereas the above mentioned other cases may be tried jointly .