Arsalan and 4 others vs The State
This criminal revision application challenges an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Mirpurkhas, which declined the applicants' request to amend the charge by deleting Section 472 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The applicants argued that since no evidence regarding the preparation of counterfeit seals or instruments had emerged during the trial, the specific charge under Section 472, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 should be removed. The core legal question was whether a trial court is obligated to amend or delete a charge solely because the prosecution allegedly failed to produce evidence supporting that specific provision before the judgment is pronounced. The Sindh High Court dismissed the application, holding that a charge cannot be amended or a penal section deleted merely on the assertion that evidence is lacking. The Court clarified that if the prosecution fails to establish a specific portion of the charge, the accused must address this deficiency during final arguments rather than through a pre-judgment amendment of the charge. The principle established is that the absence of evidence for a specific charge does not necessitate its deletion before the final verdict.
- Can a trial court be compelled to delete a penal section from a charge solely on the ground that the prosecution failed to produce evidence for it during trial?
- Is the absence of evidence regarding a specific charge a valid legal ground to amend the charge before the pronouncement of judgment?
- How should an accused address the failure of the prosecution to prove a specific charge if the trial has already concluded?
- Section 227, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 472, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. FAHIM AHMED SIDDIQUI, J.---The instant Criminal Revision Application questions the legality and propriety of the order dated 15.11.2017, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Mirpurkhas, whereby' an application under section 227, Cr .P.C. filed by the applicants for amendment of charge was declined.
2. By filing the aforementioned application, the applicants/accused are seeking deletion of section 472, P.P.C. from the body of charge framed against them at the time of initiation of trial.
3. While pressing the instant Criminal Revision Application, learned counsel for the applicants submits that during trial, no evidence has came on the record in respect of section 472, P.P.C., as such, it will be appropriate and justifies that such section be deleted from the charge. He submits that the trial is completed and now only the judgment is to be pronounced but the learned trial Court has refused to entertain the request of the applicants on the ground that it has been filed at such a belated stage. According to the counsel for the applicants, the charge can be altered at any time before prono uncing judgment and in this respect he relied from a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court reported in 2018 PCr .LJ Note 64 [ Re: Naimatullah v . The State ].
4. On the other hand, learned D.P.G opposes the instant Criminal Revision Application by submitting that no doubt it is the power of the learned trial Court to amend the charge at any time before pronouncing judgment but in the instant case, there is no necessity for the same. I have heard the arguments advanced and have gone through the entire record. There is no cavil regarding that the charge can be amended A at any time before pronouncement of judgment. In the instant case, the contention of the counsel for the applicants is that the charge is required to be amended only on the ground that no evidence has come on the B record to attract the provision of section 472, P.P.C. Section 472, P.P.C. attracts in case of preparation of counterfeit seal and of instruments for making an impression and as per the contention of the learned counsel for the applicants, nothing of the sort was came on the record during statement of prosecution witnesses. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicants is that since no such material come on the record; therefore, such section should be deleted from the charge. In this respect, I am of the view, that a charge cannot be amended and a penal section cannot be deleted solely on the ground that some evidence has not came on the record regarding the same. In the instant case, the trial has been completed and if the prosecution is not succeeded in establishing the case in respect of any portion of the charge, the same can be addressed by the applicants at the time of preferring final arguments.
5. The above are the reasons for my short order dated 17.12.2018, in terms of which instant Criminal Revision Application was dismissed.