ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, HYDERABAD

 

Cr. Revision  Appl. No.S-14 of 2010

 

DATE                                     ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

 

                        For Katcha Peshi.

 

25.08.2010

 

Mr. Hussain Bux Solangi Advocate for the applicants.

Syed Meeral Shah Deputy Prosecutor General 

                        =

Through this criminal revision, the applicants have impugned the order dated 23.12.2009 passed by the learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Dadu whereby application u/s 227 Cr.P.C filed by them was dismissed.

It is inter alia contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that the trial court has framed charge u/s 302 PPC, whereas this incident pertains to an accident whereby deceased lost his life and another person received injuries. It is further contended that though the police had submitted final report applying section 302 PPC but the learned DPP also deferred with the police opinion, hence the impugned order is not sustainable in law and is liable to be set-aside.

Learned Deputy Prosecutor General  for the state supported the impugned order.

No doubt the charge can be amended or altered at any stage, even before announcement of the Judgment but the power lies with the trial court as the trial court is in better position to assess the evidence and material placed before it. In case of Muhammad Ashraf Vs. The State reported in PLD 2008 Lahore 568, it is held that the charge under the law is to be framed by the trial court on the basis of material placed before it and in doing so, the court is not bound by the report submitted u/s 173 Cr.P.C. The court has to frame the charge u/s 265-D Cr.P.C after perusing the police papers or complaint and material provided by the prosecution. Charge once framed would not become rigid or irrevocable; it could be altered or changed u/s 227 Cr.P.C if it is so warranted by the circumstances. Learned counsel for the applicants could not pin point the circumstances which warrant interference.

In view of the above, I do not find any merits in the Revision application, which is accordingly dismissed.

 

 

                                                                                                            JUDGE

A.K