AHMAD YAR And Another vs THE STATE
This criminal revision petition arose from a trial where the petitioners were initially charged and convicted by a Magistrate under Section 148/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Upon appeal, the Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the petitioners of the original charges but convicted them under Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether an appellate court can convict an accused for an offence for which they were not originally charged, particularly when the new offence is not cognate to the original charge. The Court held that the conviction was bad in law because the petitioners were not charged under Section 324, and the offence under Section 324 is not cognate to the offence under Section 148/149. The Court established the principle that an accused cannot be convicted of a major offence without a specific charge, especially when the new offence is not cognate to the original charge for which the accused was tried. Consequently, the revision was accepted, and the petitioners were acquitted.
- Can an appellate court convict an accused for an offence for which they were not originally charged?
- Is an offence under Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 cognate to an offence under Section 148/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Does the conviction of an accused for a major offence without a specific charge violate legal principles?
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
Ahmad Yar and Abdul Aziz petitioners and five others were tried for an offence under section 148/149, P.P.C. By Magistrate 1st Class, Kot Addu. They denied the charge and claimed to be tried. On the conclusion of the trial the learned Magistrate convicted them under section 148/149, P.P.C. And sentenced them to six months' R.I. Each. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the petitioners and their co- convicts filed appeal which was entrusted to Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffargarh who while acquitting them of the charges, convicted the petitioners under section 324, P.P.C. Hence this revision.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since the petitioners were not charged under section 324, P.P.C., so they could not have been convicted under this section. The learned counsel for the State is not in a position to controvert him.
3. I have considered the matter. I feel persuaded to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioners. I find that the petitioners were charged under section 148/149, P.P.C. The learned Additional Sessions Judge set aside their conviction under these sections and instead convicted them under section 324, P.P.C. It is really sad that the learned Additional Sessions Judge did not know that the petitioners who were charged with minor offence under section 148/149, P.P.C. Could not have been convicted for major offence under section 324, P.P.C. Without charge under this section. Furthermore, offence under section 324, P.P.C. Is not cognate to offence under section 148/149, P.P.C. There can be no two opinions that the conviction of the petitioners by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is bad in law.
4. For what has been said above, the revision is accepted and the conviction and sentence of the petitioners awarded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is set aside and they are acquitted.
Cited by 4 cases
- MUHAMMAD A'YUB BHATTI and others vs THE STATE 2006 P Cr. L J 631
- PIR IMTIAZ and another vs THE STATE 2005 P C R L J 721
- PIR IMTIAZ Versus State 2005 PCRLJ 721
- GULZAR and 3 others vs FIDA HUSSAIN SHAH and anothers 1997 P Cr. L J 1663