' JAVED IQBAL, J.---This appeal with leave of the Court is directed against order dated 20-9-2010 passed by learned single Judge of Lahore High Court (Multan Bench) Multan whereby the criminal revision preferred on behalf of Ghulam Shabbir and Qadeer Ahmed (respondents) has been accepted by setting aside the order dated 4-5-2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jampur.
2. The facts of the case have been mentioned elaborately in the order impugned hence reproduction whereof would be of no use.
3. Heard Ch. Afrasiab Khan, learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of Muhammad Jameel Azeem (appellant/complainant) at length who mainly argued that the provisions as enumerated in sections 227 and 228, Cr.P.C. Have been misinterpreted and misconstrued causing serious prejudice against the appellant. It is next contended that the charge could have been amended by the learned trial court on the basis of record available, such as report under section 173, Cr.P.C. And statements of prosecution witnesses got recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C, and no restriction whatsoever has been imposed for recording any evidence before amending the charge as it is not a legal requirement. It is next contended that the record of the case has not been examined by the learned revisional court in its true perspective which resulted in serious miscarriage of justice. It is argued that the amendment in charge cannot be equated to that of review and it always depends on the evidence collected by the prosecution and vast powers have been conferred upon the learned trial court under section 227, Cr.P.C. Which cannot be confined into a limited sphere as held in the order impugned.
4. Respondents are present in person and submitted that they are innocent and no offence whatsoever has been committed by them and the charge of murder is baseless and no evidence worth the name has come on record for making any amendment in the charge as has been done by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and the wrong has been set right in the judgment impugned which being well based hardly warrants any interference.
5. Mr. Asjad Javed Ghural, learned Additional Prosecutor-General entered appearance on behalf of the State and does not support the order impugned with the submission that the learned trial court is competent to make any amendment in the charge pursuant to the provision& as conferred upon it under section 227, Cr.P.C. It is also pointed out that District Attorney who appeared in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge on behalf of the State has also supported the amendment in the charge.
6. We have carefully examined the respective contentions as agitated on behalf of the parties and perused the orders of learned trial and revisional courts carefully. The record made available has been scrutinized with the eminent assistance of learned counsel. The pivotal question which needs determination would be as to whether charge could have been amended by the learned Additional Sessions Judge pursuant to the powers as conferred upon it under section 227, Cr.P.C.
Which is reproduced herein below for ready reference:-- "227. Court may alter charge.---(1) Any Court may alter or add to any charge at any time before judgment is pronounced;
2. Every such alteration or addition shall be read and explained to the accused".
7. A bare perusal of the said reproduced section would reveal that it has been couched in a very simple and plain language and no scholarly interpretation would be needed. The learned dial Court is competent to amend the charge if circumstances so justify subject to one condition that it should have been done prior to the pronouncement of judgment in order to eliminate the possibility of any prejudice to the accused person. A The learned High Court has erred while holding that recording of some evidence would be needed prior to making any amendment in the charge because no such condition has been laid down in the provisions enumerated in section 227, Cr.P.C. whereby it has been made abundant clear that charge can be amended at "any stage" and the only restriction is that it should have been done prior to the pronouncement of judgment.
In this regard, we are fortified by the dictum laid down in Nadir Shah v. The State (1980 SCM R 402), Machia and 2 others v. The State (PLD 1976 SC 695, Shahadat Khan v. Home Secretary to the Government of West Pakistan (PLD 1969 SC 158).
8. We are not persuaded to agree with the private respondents that no amendment, should have been made as they are innocent for the reason that the question of guilt or innocence would be considered by the learned trial Court as it squarely falls within its domain of jurisdiction.
9. In view of what has been discussed herein above, the order impugned being laconic is set aside and this appeal is accepted. The judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge shall remain intact.