SYED SAKHI HUSSAIN BOKHARI, J.--- This revision petition is directed against the judgment, dated 7-7-2004 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Okara and judgment, dated 25-5-2004 passed by learned Magistrate, Okara.
2. The brief facts of the case are that Abdul Hameed got registered case F.I.R. No,621 of 1999 dated 11-12-1999 under sections 420, 406, 506, P.P.C. At Police Station "B" Division Okara against the petitioners/ accused and after usual investigation they were challaned. The accused faced trial and they were convicted under section 420, P.P.C. And sentenced to suffer three years' R.I. And to pay Rs,10,000 each as fine. They were also convicted under section 506, P.P.C. And sentenced to suffer one year's R.I. Each vide judgment dated 25-5-2004. The petitioners filed appeal thereagainst which was dismissed vide judgment, dated 7-7-2004 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Okara. Hence this revision petition.
3. I have heard the arguments and perused the record.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that learned trial Court has not framed charge according to provisions of section 222, Cr.P.C., therefore, accused/petitioners were misled. He has further argued that it was necessary for the learned trial Court to state particulars of charge (time and place of the alleged offence and the person against whom offence was committed) but learned trial Court has not given particulars of offence hence charge is defective. He has, prayed for remand of the case to trial Court for decision afresh on merits and in accordance with law after framing valid charge. According to section 222, Cr.P.C. The charge should contain time and place of the alleged offence and the person against whom it was committed. Learned trial Court has not taken into consideration provisions of section 222, Cr.P.C. It would be advantageous to reproduce the same as under:--.
"Particulars as to time, place and person.--- (1) The charge shall contain such particulars as, to the time and place of the alleged offence, and the person (if any) against whom, or the thing (if any) in respect of which, it was committed, as are reasonably sufficient to give the accused notice of the matter with which he is charged.
(2) When the accused is charged with criminal breach of trust or dishonest misappropriation of money it shall be sufficient to specify the gross sum in respect of which the offence is alleged to have been committed, and the dates between which the offence is alleged to have been committed, without specifying particular items or exact dates, and the charge so framed shall be deemed to be a charge of one offence within the meaning of section 234: Provided that the time included between the first and last of such dates shall not exceed one year."
Learned trial Court has framed charge under section 420, P.P.C. And the manner in which accused cheated complainant is not set out in the A charge. The date of occurrence is also incorrect. It is mandatory that charge shall contain all material particulars as to time, place as well as specific name of the alleged offence, the manner in which the offence was committed and particulars of the accused so as to afford accused opportunities' to explain the matter, with which he is charged.
Also that he may prepare his case/defence as charge is very start of trial. Learned trial Court has not framed charge in accordance with provisions of section 222, Cr.P.C. So it is material error and accused/petitioners have in fact been misled by such error and it has occasioned failure of justice.
Learned D.P.G. Also concedes the proposition. So this revision petition is accepted, impugned judgments are set aside and case is remanded to learned trial Court for decision afresh on merits and in accordance with law after framing a valid charge. The petitioners shall appear before learned trial Court on 15-2-2007. The case was registered on 11-12-1999, therefore, learned trial Court is directed to decide the same within six months (till 26-7-2007).