' QAISER RASHID KHAN, J.---Through the petition in hand under section 561-A, Cr.P.C, the petitioner Ejaz Hussain has called in question the judgment/order dated 21-3-2013 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, D.I.Khan as well as the judgment/order dated 14-1-2013 of the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, D.I.Khan.
2. Relevant facts leading to the filing of the instant petition are that on the application under section 22-A Cr.P.C. Before the learned Sessions Judge/Justice of Peace, D.I. Khan, an F.I.R was ordered to be lodged against the accused/respondents, whereafter F.I.R. No,404 dated 26-7-2010, under sections 419, 420, 468, 471, 467, 47 & 109, P.P.C. Was registered against the accused/respondents at Police Station Cantt: D.I.Khan. Subsequently the complete challan was put in court for trial on 5-10-2010 and the accused/respondents were accordingly charge-sheeted on 25-1-2011 by the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, D.L.Khan under sections 419, 420, 468, 471 and 477-A, P.P.C. To which the accused/respondents did not plead guilty and claimed trial. After the statements of three P.Ws. Were recorded, on 21-12-2012, the petitioner/ complainant submitted an application for the addition of section 467, P.P.C. In the charge-sheet which was dismissed by the learned Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 14-1-2013 and the revision petition preferred thereagainst also met the same fate on 21-3-2013 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, D.I.
Khan, hence the instant quashment petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that despite the registration of the F.I.R against the accused/respondents under sections 419, 420, 468, 471, 467, 477-A and 109, P.P.C. At Police Station cantt: D.I.Khan on 26-7-2010 and after completion of investigation and submission of challan before the learned trial Court, the non-inclusion of section 467, P.P.C. By the learned trial Court in the charge-sheet was uncalled for as the section ibid was exclusively triable by the learned Sessions Judge; that when section 467, P.P.C. Was duly incorporated in the F.I.R. And the investigation was also conducted in line with the same, then the learned Judicial Magistrate had no authority to exclude section 467, P.P.C. From the charge-sheet but to transmit the complete challan to the court of learned Sessions Judge and thus the learned Judicial Magistrate exceeded in exercising jurisdiction in the matter by trying the case himself. He thus argued that the impugned findings of both the courts below are based on assumptions and presumptions and are in gross violation of the administration of criminal justice as well as of the Cr.P.C. And thus are liable to be quashed/set aside and accordingly section 467, P.P.C. Be included in the charge-sheet.
4. The learned counsel for the accused/respondents defended the impugned findings of the courts below on almost the same grounds as enumerated therein. The learned A.A.G. Too, was of the view that the impugned judgments and orders of both the courts below are in accordance with law and suffer from no illegality as such.
5. Arguments heard and record perused.
6. As evident from the record, an F.I.R No,404 was registered against the accused/respondents under sections 419, 420, 468, 471, 467, 477-A and 109, P.P.C. On the order of learned Sessions Judge/ Justice of Peace, D.I.Khan resulting from the application under section 22-A, Cr.P.C: moved by the petitioner. After the matter was investigated, complete challan was submitted in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate-II, D.I.Khan who accordingly framed charge under sections 419, 420, 468, 471 and 477-A, P.P.C. Vide charge sheet dated 25-1-2011. The accused/ respondents did not plead guilty to the charge and claimed trial and accordingly statements of three P.Ws. Were recorded when on 21-12-2012, the petitioner submitted an application for adding section 467, P.P.C.
In the charge-sheet. What prompted the petitioner to file the said application at such a belated stage goes unexplained. Moreover, it is relevant to A refer to section 227, Cr.P.C. Which is as under:-- ."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. Charge-sheet or for that matter framing of charge against an accused is neither sacrosanct nor per se becomes gospel truth which attains finality. The same can be altered or added at any time by the learned trial judge before the judgment is pronounced. Thus I am of the considered view that the apprehensions of the petitioner at this stage of the case viz. The non-inclusion of section 467, P.P.C. In the charge sheet are premature and that too, when the said section of law is mentioned both in the F.I.R as well as in the complete challan. Even at the conclusion of the trial, if the learned trial Court reaches to the conclusion that the evidence so recorded warrants the application of section 467, P.P.C. In the case, it may accordingly add the same to the charge so framed and send the case file to the learned Sessions Judge for further proceedings. The orders passed by both the courts below are well within the framework of law and thus warrant no interference through the instant petition.
8. For the reasons stated above, the instant quashed petition being bereft of any merit is hereby dismissed.