Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---- ----Ss. 233, 235 & 239---Separate charges for distinct offences---Joint trial---Same transaction---General rule and exceptions---Held, that S.233, Cr.P.C. embodies the general rule that every distinct offence shall carry a separate charge and every such charge shall be tried separately---Such rule is, however, subject to the exceptions contained in Ss.234, 235, 236 and 239, Cr.P.C.---Section 235 permits one accused to be charged and tried in one trial for multiple offences where the offences arise from one series of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction---Section 239(d), Cr.P.C. extends the principle to joint trial of several accused for different offences committed in the course of the same transaction---Provisions of Ss.235 and 239 are enabling and discretionary, not mandatory, because the legislature used the expression “may”---Mere legal possibility of joinder does not create a legal duty to consolidate trials. Cited Cases: • MD. Mosaddar Hoque and another v. The State PLD 1958 SC 131 • Shahadat Khan and another v. Home Secretary PLD 1969 SC 158 • Nadir Shah v. The State 1980 SCMR 402 (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---- ----Ss. 235 & 239---Expression “same transaction”---Tests for determination---Continuity of action---Community of purpose or design---Causal connection---Held, that the expression “transaction” is not defined in the Code and it is for the Court to determine whether a given set of facts constitutes the “same transaction”---Tests include proximity of time and place, community of purpose or design, continuity of action and causal connection---Proximity of time and place alone is insufficient; the essential elements are community of purpose or design and continuity of action---Where offences are separable in nature, purpose and motive, they cannot automatically be treated as forming the same transaction---In the present matter, allegations relating to physical occurrence and allegations relating to later dissemination of the event were separable; former could relate to sexual gratification while the latter could relate to humiliation, degradation or blackmail---Same transaction was therefore not established. Cited Cases: • MD. Mosaddar Hoque and another v. The State PLD 1958 SC 131 • Emperor v. Datto Hanmant Shahapurkar ILR 30 Bom 49 • Babulal Chaukhani v. King Emperor 65 IA 158 • Emperor v. Sejmal Poonamchand ILR 51 Bom 310 • Ata Muhammad Khan Alvi v. Crown PLD 1950 Lahore 288 (c) Anti-Rape (Investigation and Trial) Act (XXXI of 2021)---- ----Ss. 9 & 16(4)---Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (XL of 2016), Ss.29 & 30---Special statutes---Separate investigative and trial mechanisms---Joint trial of scheduled and non-scheduled offences---Scope of S.16(4) of Anti-Rape Act---Held, that the Anti-Rape Act and PECA are special statutes with distinct investigative and procedural regimes---Scheduled sexual offences under the Anti-Rape Act are to be investigated by Special Sexual Offences Investigation Units, whereas offences under PECA are investigated by the notified cybercrime investigation agency---Section 16(4) of the Anti-Rape Act, 2021, which provides that the Special Court “may also try” connected non-scheduled offences, is an enabling provision and must be read narrowly so as not to displace the forum and procedure contemplated by PECA---Consolidation across separate statutory regimes may raise issues of jurisdictional enlargement not expressly conferred by law. (d) Constitution of Pakistan---- ----Art.175(2)---Jurisdiction of courts---Special courts---Joint trial across statutory regimes---Held, that in view of Art.175(2) of the Constitution, Courts must avoid any impression of enlarging jurisdiction beyond what is expressly conferred by law---Where legislature has created separate court structures for distinct categories of offences, consolidation of proceedings across different regimes is not to be ordered mechanically---Court must exercise caution before requiring a trial court to assume jurisdiction not clearly conferred by the relevant statute. (e) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---- ----Ss. 173, 233, 235 & 239---Separate FIRs under different statutory regimes---Separate investigations and challans---Charges framed and evidence partly recorded---Consolidation after commencement of trial---Held, that where separate FIRs were registered under two different statutory regimes, separate investigations were undertaken by distinct agencies, separate reports under S.173, Cr.P.C. were submitted, separate charges had been framed and prosecution evidence had partly been recorded, formal consolidation at such advanced stage would require alteration of charges and restructuring of proceedings---Consolidation after commencement of evidence is an exception rather than the norm---Discretion under Ss.235 and 239, Cr.P.C. is to be exercised judiciously and not mechanically. (f) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---- ----Ss. 235 & 239---Joint trial---Apprehension of conflicting judgments---Same Court conducting both trials---Held, that apprehension of conflicting judgments did not arise in the peculiar facts where both matters stood entrusted to the same Court---Possibility of inconsistency is substantially minimized when the same judicial forum evaluates the evidence---Simultaneous continuation of separate trials before the same Court sufficiently safeguards coherence in proceedings without disturbing the procedural structure already in place. (g) Constitution of Pakistan---- ----Arts.10-A & 14---Qanun-e-Shahadat Order (10 of 1984), Arts.131 & 143 to 148---Cross-examination---Right of accused---Protection of witness dignity---Role of trial Judge---Held, that the right of an accused to cross-examine a complainant or witness exists, but it is neither unlimited nor unbridled---Trial Judge must balance the right of cross-examination with the right of fair trial and human dignity guaranteed under Arts.10-A and 14 of the Constitution---Questions which are irrelevant, indecent, without reasonable grounds, or intended to insult or annoy the witness must not be permitted---Prolonged cross-examination designed to exhaust the witness or manipulate error amounts to misuse of such right---Presiding Judge must not remain a silent spectator and should intervene where cross-examination is abused. (h) Constitution of Pakistan---- ----Arts.9, 10-A & 14---Witness protection and dignity---Witness box---No requirement that witness must remain standing---Provision of seating arrangements---Held, that there is no legal requirement under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, or Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 that a witness must remain standing while giving evidence---Compelling a witness, particularly in sexual offence cases, to remain standing for prolonged periods during testimony imposes unnecessary physical and psychological burden and may impair clarity and composure of evidence---Allowing a witness to remain seated does not diminish the sanctity of oath or dignity of judicial proceedings; rather, it promotes fairness, composure and orderly administration of justice---Witnesses assist the administration of justice and must be treated with dignity, security and respect. (i) Witness protection statutes---- ----Witness Protection, Security and Benefit Act, 2017---Sindh Witness Protection Act, 2013---Balochistan Witness Protection Act, 2016---Punjab Witness Protection Act, 2018---Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Witness Protection Act, 2021---Protection of witnesses and complainants---Constitutional duty of State---Held, that protection of witnesses and complainants is grounded in Arts.9, 10-A and 14 of the Constitution and reinforced by federal and provincial witness protection laws---State is under a constitutional obligation to ensure that witnesses and victims are protected from intimidation, coercion, humiliation and undue hardship so that testimony may be rendered freely and judicial proceedings may proceed in accordance with law. (j) Administration of justice---- ----Witness seating arrangements---Directions to subordinate courts, Special Courts and Tribunals---Held, that all District and Sessions Judges, courts subordinate to them, Administrative Judges of Special Courts and Tribunals in Pakistan were directed to ensure that appropriate seating arrangements are mandatorily provided to persons in the witness box, whether by chair, seat or bench---Registrar of Supreme Court was directed to circulate the judgment to the Chief Justices of all High Courts for implementation and compliance in all courts where evidence is recorded, including civil courts, criminal courts, special courts and tribunals. (k) Constitution of Pakistan---- ----Art.185(3)---Leave to appeal---Consolidation of trials---Discretion exercised by Courts below---Interference by Supreme Court---Held, that the impugned order did not suffer from any jurisdictional defect, illegality or perversity warranting interference under Art.185(3) of the Constitution---Question raised related essentially to exercise of judicial discretion by Courts below and did not call for intervention in absence of injustice. Disposition: Leave to appeal was refused and Criminal Petition No.1160 of 2025 was dismissed; directions were issued for mandatory seating arrangements for witnesses in courts and for circulation of the judgment to all High Courts for implementation.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898): ----Ss. 234, 239 & 222(2)---Joinder of charges---Multiple FIRs for offenses of the same kind within one year---Consolidation of trial---Effect. Petitioners were charged under three separate FIRs arising from the same transaction involving misappropriation of government funds in a reconstruction project. The petitioners sought consolidation of charges under Ss. 234 and 239, Cr.P.C., arguing that the offenses were committed within a twelve-month period, stemmed from a single inquiry, and involved the same accused and complainant. The trial court rejected their application. The High Court held that when multiple offenses of the same kind occur within a year and involve continuity of intention and action, a joint trial is permissible under the law. It was further held that splitting up the prosecution into separate cases prejudices the accused and contradicts the legislative intent behind S. 222(2), Cr.P.C. The revision was allowed, and the trial court was directed to consolidate the charges and proceed accordingly. ----Cited Cases: • Nadir Shah v. State (1980 SCMR 402) • Shah Nawaz v. State (1992 SCMR 1583) • Negendra Nath Sen v. Emperor (AIR 1932 Calcutta 486) (b) Anti-Corruption Laws: ----S. 409, P.P.C. & S. 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947---Misappropriation of public funds---Multiple FIRs for the same inquiry---Legality of bifurcated prosecution. The petitioners, officials of the C&W Department, were implicated in multiple FIRs related to allegations of corruption in a government-funded project. The High Court observed that the entire inquiry, technical report, and prosecution were based on a single transaction, making it improper to split the case into separate FIRs. The court reiterated that criminal breach of trust cases involving multiple transactions within a year should be treated as a single offense under S. 222(2), Cr.P.C. The prosecution’s attempt to divide the case into separate trials was held to be against legal principles, and the petitioners' request for joinder of charges was granted. (c) Fair Trial and Due Process: ----Multiplicity of proceedings---Prejudice to accused---Right to a fair defense. The court emphasized that charging an accused in multiple separate trials for the same transaction is prejudicial and contrary to fair trial principles. It held that joinder of charges under Ss. 234 and 239, Cr.P.C., ensures procedural fairness, reduces undue burden on the accused, and prevents unnecessary delay in proceedings. The court ruled that fragmenting the prosecution into multiple cases based on the same set of facts results in injustice and contradicts the established principles of criminal jurisprudence. (d) Revisional Jurisdiction: ----S. 439, Cr.P.C.---Intervention by High Court in improper charge-framing---Correction of trial court errors. The High Court exercised its revisional jurisdiction to correct the trial court’s error in denying the consolidation of charges. It held that misapplication of procedural laws affecting the fundamental rights of the accused warrants interference under S. 439, Cr.P.C. The trial court’s refusal to consolidate charges was set aside, and directions were issued to conduct a joint trial in accordance with Ss. 234 and 239, Cr.P.C. ----Disposition: Revision allowed. Trial court directed to consolidate charges and proceed with a joint trial.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan ----Art. 199, Art. 13(a)---Writ jurisdiction---Multiple FIRs on similar allegations---Abetment through social media---Doctrine of sameness---Petitioner, a political leader, was implicated in multiple FIRs registered across different police stations in Lahore in the aftermath of countrywide unrest following the arrest of a political leader on 09.05.2023---Allegation against petitioner was incitement through social media posts---Petitioner contended that the various FIRs stemmed from a continuous sequence of events arising out of the same cause, and therefore violated the rule enunciated in Mst. Sughran Bibi v. The State (PLD 2018 SC 595) and the doctrine of sameness---Held, the doctrine of sameness does not apply where alleged offences occurred at different times and places, involved distinct acts of violence and accused persons, and were not part of the same transaction---Only where proximity in time, place, and continuity of action exists can joinder of trials be considered---General consolidation of all FIRs unjustified in present facts. Cited Cases: • Mst. Sughran Bibi v. The State PLD 2018 SC 595 • Shahid Ali v. The State and others PLJ 2024 Peshawar (Note) 222 • Mst. Sanam Javed v. Special Judge Anti-Terrorism Court, Gujranwala and others 2025 PCr.LJ 148 • Md. Mosaddar Hoque and Md. Abdul Rouf v. The State PLD 1958 SC (Pak) 131 • S.M.K. Alvi v. The Crown PLD 1953 FC 189 • Shahadat Khan v. Home Secretary, West Pakistan PLD 1969 SC 158 • Khan Mohammad v. The State 1971 PCr.LJ 762 • Choragudi Yenkatadri v. Emperor ILR 33 Mad. 522 • Babulul Chuukhani v. King-Emperor 65 I.A. 158 (b) Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 ----Ss. 154, 177, 179, 180, 233, 239---Multiple FIRs---Trial jurisdiction---Abetment---Same transaction---Scope---Petitioner claimed all FIRs related to one act of abetment and sought their transfer to District Faisalabad where a related trial was pending---Held, section 180 Cr.P.C. allows concurrent jurisdiction either at the place of abetment or where the abetted offence was committed---However, it does not support consolidation of multiple distinct offences across districts committed by different individuals, even if allegedly instigated by the same act---Section 239 Cr.P.C. permits joinder only if offences were committed in the course of the same transaction---Factual distinctiveness of each FIR, including time, location, and participants, precludes their joint trial---Petitioner’s reliance on section 180 Cr.P.C. and the “same transaction” doctrine was misplaced in view of settled judicial interpretation. (c) Interpretation of "same transaction" under Cr.P.C. ----Ss. 233, 234, 235, 236, 239---Joint trial---Same offence v. different offences---Judicial tests---Scope---Held, “same transaction” must reflect proximity of time and place, continuity of action, and community of purpose---Factors such as causal connection, participation of same accused, and interdependent events are relevant but not sufficient unless community of design and factual nexus is established---Courts have consistently held that each case must be examined on its own merits to determine whether joinder is permissible---Generalized reliance on political context or common cause is insufficient to justify consolidation. Disposition: Petition dismissed. However, competent trial court may consider limited joinder under section 239 Cr.P.C. in cases where factual record shows proximity in time, place, and continuity of events.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) – ----Ss. 233 & 239---Joint trial of two sets of accused in the same occurrence---Legality---Scope---Held, where two sets of accused are involved in the same incident but on mutually exclusive narratives, they cannot be tried jointly as per the provisions of S. 239, Cr.P.C.---A joint trial would be contrary to the legal requirement that accused persons must be charged together only if they are alleged to have committed the same offense in the course of the same transaction---Separate trials must be conducted in such cases to ensure a fair trial and avoid prejudice to either party. Cited Cases: Ali v. The Crown (PLD 1954 Lah. 183) Noor Ahmad v. The State (PLD 1964 SC 120) Ali Muhammad v. Amir Ali (Criminal Misc. No. 998 of 1945, Lahore High Court) ---- (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) – ----Ss. 233, 239 & 540-A---Trial procedure in cases involving conflicting versions of the same incident---Scope---Held, while joint trials are impermissible in such cases, a fair procedure should be adopted to avoid conflicting verdicts on the same occurrence---It is advisable for the trial court to hear the complaint case first, summoning witnesses listed in the police challan as court witnesses under S. 540-A, Cr.P.C., so that their testimony is available for both trials---If the first trial results in a conviction, the Public Prosecutor may consider withdrawing the other prosecution under S. 494, Cr.P.C., to prevent inconsistent judgments---If the first trial ends in acquittal, the prosecution must assess whether proceeding with the second trial is justified in light of the first trial's findings. Cited Cases: Ali Muhammad v. Amir Ali (Criminal Misc. No. 998 of 1945, Lahore High Court) (c) Evidence Act (I of 1872) – ----S. 43---Use of evidence or findings from one trial in another---Scope---Held, findings recorded in a criminal case are not admissible as legal evidence in another criminal proceeding, as per S. 43 of the Evidence Act---Each trial must be decided based on its own record without being influenced by judgments in related or cross cases---Superior courts have cautioned against trial courts basing their decisions on findings from a parallel or prior proceeding. Cited Cases: Muhammad Anwar v. Muhammad Ilyas Begum (PLD 2013 SC 255) (d) Administration of Justice – ----Avoiding conflicting decisions in multiple trials arising from the same occurrence---Scope---Held, while every criminal proceeding must be adjudicated on its own merits, the law cannot allow inconsistent convictions in separate trials based on mutually exclusive narratives of the same event---It would be legally unsound for two courts to convict different accused persons on entirely contradictory accounts of a single incident---To avoid such conflicts, courts must adopt procedural safeguards, such as consolidating proceedings or directing the prosecution to present all versions and evidence together, allowing the trial court to assess the full factual matrix before reaching a decision. Cited Cases: G.M. Sikdar v. The State (PLD 1970 SC 158) (e) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) – ----S. 270---Role of Public Prosecutor in trials based on conflicting versions of the same occurrence---Scope---Held, as per S. 270, Cr.P.C., every trial before a Court of Session must be conducted by the Public Prosecutor, even if it originates from a private complaint---The Public Prosecutor is not bound to advocate a particular version but should present all relevant evidence objectively, allowing the court to determine the true facts of the case---In exceptional circumstances, the complainant's counsel may be designated as a Special Public Prosecutor to conduct the trial, ensuring fair representation of both versions. Cited Cases: Muhammad Saleem v. The State (1994 SCMR 2213) ------Disposition: Appeal partially allowed. Trial court directed to proceed with separate trials while ensuring fair consideration of all evidence in accordance with procedural safeguards.