' JAVED IQBAL, J.---This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order dated 26.3.2009 whereby the writ petition preferred on behalf of petitioners has been dismissed and order dated 9.6.2008 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Jhang has been kept intact.
2. Precisely .Stated the facts of the case are that a private complaint was lodged by Mst. Samina Tariq on the ground 1 that true version had not been recorded by the police in FIR No, 591/2005 got registered under Sections 302, PPC with Police Station Saddar, Jhang against the petitioners alleging therein that murder of her husband was committed by the respondents. After completion of necessary formalities and recording preliminary evidence, the learned Sessions Judge issued process .Against seven accused persons including petitioners. Mst. Samina Tariq moved an application on 29.8.2006 seeking correction in the names of two accused persons (petitioners) which was allowed by means of order dated 9.6.2008. Being dissatisfied the petitioners assailed the said order by invoking the Constitutional jurisdiction as conferred upon learned High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The writ petition was. However, dismissed, hence this, petition for leave to appeal.
3. Mr. Muhammad Aslam Uns, learned ASC entered appearance on behalf of petitioners and contended with vehemence that after issuance of process no amendment detrimental or prejudicial to the case of petitioners can be permitted as has been done by the learned Courts below. It is urged with firmness that petitioners were neither named in the FIR nor named in the private complaint and respondents kept silent when preliminary inquiry was being conducted and therefore, names of the petitioners could not have been incorporated in the complaint which amounts to flagrant violation of law. It is next contended that private complaint by no means can be amended after the initiation of process by the Court -Concerned as it is not permissible. It is pointed out that amendment sought by the respondents was not rectification simpliciter but involvement of the petitioners against whom no evidence whatsoever has been available as there names were never mentioned in the FIR.
4. We have carefully examined the above-mentioned contentions in light of relevant provisions of law and record of the case. Let we make it clear at the outset that "amendment" means addition, deletion, insertion or substitution but the proposed amendment by respondents for the correction of names was neither deletion or addition nor insertion or substitution but correction simpliciter having no bearing whatsoever on merits of the case. As mentioned hereinabove Mst. Samina Tariq (respondent) has sought correction qua the names of two accused persons (petitioners). It is to be noted that legally the terms "amendment" and "correction" are neither synonymous nor interchangeable because correction mainly relates to removal or rectification of errors, mistakes, inadvertent omissions, .Defects or faults. Whereas the "amendment" connotes, addition, deletion, insertion and substitution having substantial bearing on the character of pleadings irrespective of its nature. The complaint cannot be declared such a sacrosanct document wherein no change can be made however, impact whereof is to be examined before granting such permission.
5. It is to be kept in view that initiation of process under Sections 202 and 204, Cr.P.C. Depends upon the availability or non-availability of sufficient incriminating material and it has nothing to do with the correction of names. It is'-to be noted that substitution of a person and correction of names are entirely two different things which cannot be amalgamated. As mentioned hereinabove the correction of names and substitution of accused persons are not synonymous and one and the same thing and a line of distinction has rightly been drawn by the learned High Court in the order impugned, relevant portion whereof is reproduced herein below for ready reference:-- "5. It is true that names of Abdul Muqtadar and Abdul Khaliq sons of Abdul Ahmad Khan residents of Satellite Town, hang do not figure in the F.I.R. And the private complaint case. The complainant sought correction of names and other particulars of the accused on the ground that Abdul Muqtadar and Abdul Khaliq, petitioners were commonly known as Rehan alias Guloo and Shahzeb alias Mithu, respectively. Here, Here, I would say that before recording evidence' in the main case, it is not desirable to form a definite opinion about counter-claims of the parties qua the particulars of the accused persons under discussion. Any observation by this Court may adversely affect the case and cause of either side before the inception/conclusion of trial and therefore, I am not ready to hold mini trial of the case before its regular trial. To my mind, Constitutional interference in the matter at this stage would amount to encroachment upon the functions of the Trial Court. I leave the matter to the judgment of the learned Trial Court already seized of the entire case including the point in issue. Disposed of accordingly".
6. The learned Sessions Judge has granted permission which does not affect the merits of the case in any manner as is indicative, from the following relevant portion of the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jhang on 9.6.2008:-- "6. The name of the father of both the accused in question as given in the complaint and as proposed to be written is same. Even their castes are not going to be changed through the proposed amendment. In the complaint they were cited to be residents of Satellite Town Jhang and through the proposed amendment also, they are to be shown as residents of Z-Block Satellite Town. Some times people are more known by their nick names/alias. Accused No, 4's name was recorded as Rehan. Alias Guloo, whereas the name of accused No, 6 was recorded as Shah Zaib alias Mithu, but through the proposed amendment, the said names are to be written by way of alias, whereas the actual names of accused No,4 & 6 are to be written as Abdul Muqtadar and Abdul Khaliq, respectively. It is thus evident that through the proposed amendment, the complainant is not implicating any new persons, hence, the application is allowed. The amended complaint be filed on 17.6.2008, where-after accused Nos. 4 & 6 shall be summoned".
7. We are not persuaded to agree with prime contention of the learned ASC on behalf of the petitioners that no correction can be made in the names of accused persons specially when they were not nominated in the FIR or complaint for the simple reason that it is not in consonance with the record. The names of the petitioners were incorporated in the compliant but probably due to some omission, correct names could not be mentioned. It may not be out of place to mention that issuance of process would have no bearing on merits of the case as it was issued against the same persons whose names are required to be corrected. It is repellant even to common sense that non-mentioning of correct names due to an inadvertent omission or lack of knowledge cannot be corrected when it is not prejudicial Or detrimental in any manner whatsoever.
8. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove the petition being devoid of merit is dismissed and .