Find a Lawyer

Ss. 233, 234 & 239-Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 409, 420, 471, 468 & 109-Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5(2)-Misjoinder of charges, accused-Trial Court cannot return challan for amendment-Duty of Court to proceed with an offence/accused and order other offences/accused to be tried separately-Court cannot remit file to Police for submission of separate challan, once challan was submitted and cognizance taken thereof-Court finding joint trial of offence/accused offending provisions of Cr. P. C. can itself split them up into different cases-Police, however, not debarred from filing supplementary challans of its own.

There is no provision of law which requires that in case of misjoinder of charges/accused, the challan should be returned to the police for amendment. It is well settled that challan is nothing but conveying the information to the Court and once this information is conveyed and it takes cognizance of the offence/offences, it becomes a duty of the Court to proceed according to law. In doing so, the Court may proceed with one offence accused and order, the other offences/accused to be tried separately, hence no question of remitting the file to the police for submission of separate challans arises because once challan has been submitted and cognizance taken thereof, the same cannot be returned to the police. If the Court finds that joint trial of offences/accused offends the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code then the Court can itself split them up into different cases. This, however, does not mean that the police is debarred from filing supplementary challans of its own.

Sh. Nisar Qutab for Petitioner. Irshad Ahmad for the State. . Dates of hearing : 23rd and 28th January, 1985:

The facts giving rise to this revision are that on 7-4-1978, a case under section 409/420/471/468/467,409, P. P. C. and section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 was registered against Muhammad Shafi petitioner and others at P. S. Factory Area, Faisalabad. After investigation, the challan was submitted in the Court. Sh. Ghulam Murtaza, the learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption took the cognizance of the case, framed the charges and recorded the statements of 21 witnesses when he was retired from service. His successor Syed Subtain Raza Naqvi examined the record on 25-11-1984. He found the trial suffering from the misjoinder of charges and accused, he vide his detailed order dated 25-11-1984, remitted the file to Prosecuting Deputy Superintendent of Police, Faisalabad for submission of separate challans regarding distinct offences, hence this revision.

2. The learned counsel submitted that the learned Special Judge was not legally authorized to send back the file of the case o the P. D. S. P. for submission of separate challans. The learned counsel for the State has not been able to controvert the learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. I have considered the matter carefully. I find myself persuaded to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner, inasmuch as, there is no provision of law which requires that in case of misjoinder of charges/ accused, the challan should be returned to the police for amendment. 1 is well-settled that challan is nothing but conveying the information to the Court and once this information is conveyed and it takes cognizance o the offence/ offences, it becomes a duty of the Court to proceed according to law. In doing so, the Court may proceed with one offence/accused and order, the other offences/accused to be tried separately, hence no question of remitting the file to the police for submission of separate challans arises becasue once challan has been submitted and cognizance taken thereof, the same cannot be returned to the police. If the Court finds that joint trial of offences/accused offends the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code then the Court can itself split them up into different cases. This, however, does not mean that the police is debarred from filing supplementary challans of its own.