Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan ----Art. 199---Constitutional jurisdiction---Maintainability---Alternative remedy---Petitions under Art. 199 for quashment of FIRs and orders under S. 249-A, Cr.P.C.—Scope---Where statutory remedy of revision existed and no constitutional right was infringed, extraordinary jurisdiction could not be invoked merely to circumvent the regular criminal process—However, Court examined legality as petitions were consolidated and involved identical legal questions. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----Ss. 561-A, 249-A & 403—Quashment of FIRs—Double jeopardy—Dishonoured cheques issued on different dates---Distinct transactions---Held, each dishonour arising from separate cheque constitutes a separate cause of action and distinct offence; multiple FIRs, each based on an independently dishonoured cheque, do not attract the bar of S. 403, Cr.P.C. or Art. 13 of the Constitution---Petitioner’s plea that subsequent FIRs were hit by double jeopardy was misconceived—No illegality in dismissal of S. 249-A applications by trial and revisional courts. Cited Cases: • *Saira Fatima v. The State* (2024 P Cr.LJ 1289) • *State v. Saeed Khan* (2021 P Cr.LJ 608) (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----S. 234—Joinder of charges—Dishonour of cheques within twelve months—Discretion of trial court---Where several offences of the same kind are alleged within one year, trial court may, on request, join them in a single trial to prevent multiplicity of proceedings. (d) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----Ss. 503 & 539-B—Recording of complainant’s statement through local commission---Legality---Where complainant’s physical appearance before court was impracticable due to health or security concerns, trial court may appoint an advocate-commissioner to record evidence at residence—No prejudice caused to accused if attendance is already dispensed with—Order modifying mode of recording evidence held lawful and within discretion of trial court. (e) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ----S. 489-F—Dishonoured cheque—Successive prosecutions---Separate FIRs for distinct cheques dishonoured on different dates do not offend double jeopardy principles; each dishonour gives rise to a fresh and independent offence. (f) Criminal Justice—Quashment proceedings ----Jurisdiction under S. 561-A Cr.P.C.—Parameters—Only exercisable where continuation of proceedings is manifestly illegal, oppressive, or amounts to abuse of process—Mere existence of multiple FIRs for separate transactions or pendency of trial does not justify quashment. Disposition --- All petitions dismissed. Orders dated 20-07-2022 (refusing acquittal under S. 249-A), 15-10-2022 (revisional order), 10-06-2023 (appointment of local commission), and 26-08-2023 (revisional confirmation) upheld. Trial court directed to ensure police security during recording of complainant’s statement at his residence. No order as to costs.

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.