' MUHAMMAD TARIQ ABBASI, J. Through this revision petition, the order dated 10-2-2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Burewala of District Vehari has been assailed.
2. By way of the above mentioned impugned order, the objection raised by the defence that instead of separate one trial of all the accused involved in the case should be conducted has been turned down.
3. The facts are that a criminal case, through F.I.R. No 172 dated 11-4-2009 under sections 302, 148/149 of P.P.C. At Police Station, Gaggoo, and District Vehari was registered against the present petitioner and the others.
4. The report under section 173 of Cr.P.C./challan was submitted in the court of competent jurisdiction, against the present petitioner and his co-accused, namely Muhammad Tufail, Ghulam Rasool, Muhammad Sarwar, Muhammad Ayub and Muhammad Afzaal alias Phala. At that time another accused namely Muhammad Adil, was proclaimed offender. The charge against the petitioner and his above named co-accused was framed. The trial was carried on, during which substantial prosecution evidence was recorded. Thereafter Muhammad Adil, proclaimed offender was arrested and challaned to the court, but the learned Trial Court had separately charge sheeted him and started two trials, one against the present petitioner and his above named co- accused, whereas the other against Muhammad Adil.
5. The defence raised an objection that as per law, separate trials of the accused involved in one case, could not be held and that all the accused may be re-charge sheeted and tried jointly, but the learned Trial Court through the impugned order had rejected the said objection, with the contention that separate trials were quite acceptable and permissible under the law.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the impugned order is a patent illegality because by any stretch of imagination, simultaneous separate trials of the accused involved in one case are not permissible and acceptable under the law.
7. The learned Deputy Prosecutor General as well as the learned counsel for respondent No, 2 has opposed the revision petition and supported the impugned order being quite justified and demand of the situation.
8. Arguments have been heard and record perused.
9. Section 239 of Criminal Procedure Code 1898, deals with joint trial, which reads as under:- "The following persons may be charged and tried together, namely:--
(a) Persons accused of the same offence committed in the courses of the same transaction;
(b) Persons accused of an offence and persons accused or abetment or of an attempt to commit such offence;
(c) Persons accused of more than one offence of the same kind, within the meaning of section 234 committed by them jointly within the period of twelve months;
(d) Persons accused of different offences committed in the course of the same transaction;
(e) Persons accused of an offence which includes theft, extortion or criminal misappropriation, and persons accused of receiving or retaining, or assisting in the disposal of concealment of, property possession of which is alleged to have been transferred by any such offence committed by the first named persons, or of abetment of or attempting to commit any such last named offence;
(f) Persons accused of offences under sections 411 and 414 of the Pakistan Penal Code or either of those sections in respect of stolen property the possession of which has been transferred by one offence; and
(g) Persons accused of any offence under Chapter XII of the Pakistan Penal Code relating to counterfeit coin, and persons accused of any other offence under the said Chapter relating to the same coin, or of abetment of or attempting to commit any such offence;"
10. Admittedly the present petitioner as, well as all of his above named co-accused are involved in the above mentioned case, hence the mandate of the law, on the subject is that they should be charge sheeted and tried together. The reliance may be placed in the judgment reported as "Ghulam Abbas Niazi v. Federation of Pakistan and others" (PLD 2009 Supreme Court 866), the relevant portion whereof reads as under:- "It is another settled principle of law in every civilized State of the world that people 'charged of similar offence during same transaction or transactions, are to be jointly tried. This rule of law, practice and procedure is strictly derived from the principles of equality. The wisdom behind is that those who are co-accused in the same transaction and tried for the same offence or cognate offences, as the case may be, should be in a position to defend themselves equally against the same narration of facts as well as charges. Another reason is that if one accused shifts his burden to the other one, the other should be in a position to defend himself and rebut the allegations there and then, in the presence of the other co-accused."
11. Admittedly, the petitioner and his above named co-accused are facing charge, for similar offence, committed during same occurrence/transaction, hence as per the above mentioned provision, principle, criteria and the dictum, joint trial is required. Consequently the instant revision petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 10-2-2014 is set aside, with a direction to the learned Trial Court to carry on the join trial of all the accused who are available before it, and ensure completion of the proceedings within a span of six months.