Summary: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----Ss. 561-A & 221---Quashing of order---Amendment of charge---Scope---Complainant lodged FIR against the petitioner for offences under Ss.382, 506, 148 & 149, P.P.C---Trial Court framed the charge for offences under Ss.382 & 506, P.P.C against the petitioners---Complainant instituted a criminal revision petition against the said order, which was accepted and Trial Court was directed to frame charge for offences under Sections 395, 455, 148 & 149, P.P.C---Validity---According to FIR on 17.04.2024 at about 09:00 A.M. petitioners (accused) along with 22/25 unknown culprits, all armed with rifles/pistols, emerged at the petrol pump of complainant---Said accused persons took staff members of the petrol pump as hostages on arm's point and removed CCTV cameras as well as cash amount of Rs.950,000/- and account books forcibly---Said accused persons also snatched arms held by security guards, cheque book and other valuable documents and fled away from the scene---Charge always has to be framed on the prima facie averments of allegations levelled in the FIR, statement of the witnesses under S.161, of Cr.P.C. and report under S.173, of Cr.P.C.---Offence under S.382, P.P.C and under S.395, P.P.C relate to the same family of the offences, as such from the prima facie averments of contents of the FIR, statements of the witnesses recorded under S.161, of Cr.P.C. and report under S.173, of Cr.P.C., the Trial Court was supposed to frame the charge for more graver and serious offence---In the case in hand offences under Ss.395/455/148/149, P.P.C were prima facie made out, as such this fact was rightly observed and taken into consideration by the Revisional Court, while passing the impugned order, which was found to be fully in consonance with the facts and law---Petition was dismissed, in limine. Ghulam Haider Buriro v. The State 2018 MLD 469 rel. Rana Muhammad Javed Iqbal for Petitioners. Ashfaq Ahmad Malik, Deputy Prosecutor General along with Nasir Hussain, S.I. for the State. Muhammad Fayyaz Mansab for the Complainant. Tanveer Ahmad Sheikh, J .--- The order dated 30.04.2025, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jahanian was assailed through the present petition, whereby a criminal revision moved by respondent No.2/complainant against an order dated 30.11.2024 passed by learned Magistrate framing the formal charge, was accepted and order of the learned Magistrate dated 30.11.2024, was set aside and request for amendment in the charge was allowed.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) –- S. 497(1), 4th proviso –- Bail –- Statutory delay –- Female accused –- Exception to statutory bail due to being declared a "hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal" –- Scope and application –- Principles reiterated –- Petitioner, a female accused, sought post-arrest bail on the ground of statutory delay, having remained behind bars for over one year without conclusion of trial –- Allegation against petitioner was that she, along with two accomplices, robbed the deceased of cash and bed sheets, and upon resistance, threw red chili powder in his eyes and set him on fire with petrol, resulting in over 50% burn injuries and death after days of agony –- Held, although ordinarily a female accused not convicted of a capital offence is entitled to bail after a continuous detention of one year without conclusion of trial, such entitlement is not absolute –- Under 4th proviso to S.497(1), Cr.P.C., bail shall not be granted if the accused is, in the opinion of the Court, a hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal –- Supreme Court in Shakeel Shah’s case explained that such determination is based on the nature and gravity of the offence, the violent means employed, the societal threat posed, and, if available, past criminal record –- In present case, the atrocious mode and manner of commission of offence, resulting in death by immolation, reflected the petitioner’s callous and violent disposition –- Court held petitioner to be a hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal within the contemplation of 4th proviso to S.497(1), Cr.P.C. –- Bail refused despite statutory delay and gender of accused. Cited Case: • Shakeel Shah’s case (reference to Supreme Court interpretation of “hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal”) Disposition: Bail petition dismissed.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) --- Ss. 173 & 190 --- Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 382, 395, 455, 148 & 149 --- Framing/amendment of charge --- Scope and judicial discretion --- Legal propriety of revisional court’s direction to amend charge to include graver offences Framing of charge is based on prima facie assessment of the contents of the F.I.R., statements recorded under S.161, Cr.P.C., and the police report under S.173, Cr.P.C. In the present case, the Magistrate had originally framed a charge under Ss. 382 and 506, P.P.C., but the revisional court (Additional Sessions Judge) set aside that order and directed framing of charge under Ss. 395, 455, 148 and 149, P.P.C., which carry graver punishment. Petitioners challenged this direction through the instant petition. The High Court held that in terms of settled law, if a less serious charge is framed, the accused cannot be convicted of a graver offence unless the charge is amended, and opportunity is afforded to parties. However, where a graver charge is framed, and evidence establishes a lesser included offence, conviction may be recorded without a fresh trial. Since offences under Ss. 382 and 395, P.P.C. belong to the same family of offences, and the contents of the F.I.R. alleged armed entry into a petrol pump by 22–25 accused, hostaging of staff, removal of cash, CCTV equipment, cheque book, and weapons, the revisional court rightly found a prima facie case under Ss. 395, 455, 148 and 149, P.P.C. Reference was made to Ghulam Haider Buriro v. The State (2018 MLD 469). The High Court found no illegality or jurisdictional error in the revisional court’s order. Disposition: Petition dismissed in limine.

Summary: Acquittal granted---(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---- ----Ss. 120-B, 420, 382 & 414---Criminal conspiracy, cheating, theft, and receiving stolen property---Conviction and sentence---Appellant, along with co-accused, was charged with criminal conspiracy, cheating, and theft of a vehicle---Prosecution relied on the ocular account of the complainant (P.W.1) and his cleaner (P.W.2), along with circumstantial evidence and the appellant’s confessional statement recorded under S. 164, Cr.P.C.---Trial Court convicted the appellant and sentenced him to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine under Ss. 120-B, 420, and 382, P.P.C., along with additional imprisonment under S. 414, P.P.C. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---- ----S. 164---Confession of accused---Admissibility---Retracted confession---Appellant retracted his confession, alleging that it was obtained under coercion and duress---Trial Court relied on the confession for conviction---Held, that the confession was not voluntary, as the appellant alleged mistreatment and coercion by the police and jail authorities---No corroborative evidence was provided to establish that the confession was made freely and voluntarily---In the absence of independent corroboration, a retracted and exculpatory confession was not a sufficient basis for conviction. (c) Criminal trial---- ----Role of accused in the occurrence---Presumption of innocence---Appellant was a young boy aged 16/17 years and was picked up alone at a later stage while the other co-accused were already present in the vehicle---No evidence suggested prior conspiracy or shared intent with the main accused---Held, that the prosecution failed to establish that the appellant actively participated in the crime or shared a common intention with the other accused. (d) Duty of trial court---- ----Obligation to ensure fair trial and inquire into material allegations---Appellant made serious allegations of mistreatment, including coercion and sexual abuse by a police officer and another individual during detention---Trial Court failed to investigate these claims despite their relevance to the voluntariness of the confession---Held, that the trial court, as a fact-finding body, should have inquired into the allegations to ensure a fair trial and avoid wrongful conviction. (e) Criminal liability---- ----Common intention under S. 34, P.P.C.---Failure to frame charge properly---Trial Court did not explicitly charge the appellant under S. 34, P.P.C., nor was he questioned regarding the existence of a common intention with the main accused---Absence of such a charge indicated that no case of shared criminal intent was made out against him. ----Disposition: Appeal accepted. Convictions and sentences set aside. Appellant acquitted and ordered to be released forthwith.