MUHAMMAD TARIQ ABBASI, J.---This revision petition calls in question the order dated 18.06.2019 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Talagang, District Chakwal, whereby during proceedings in case FIR No. 23, dated 23.02.2019, registered under sections 337A(i)/ 337-L(2)/367-A/377/51 1 P.P.C., at Police Station Taman, District Chakwal, the offences under sections 367-A/377/51 1, P.P.C., have been deleted and for trial of the other offences under sections 337A(i)/ 337-L(2), P .P.C., the matter has been referred to the Judicial Magistrate.
2. The above mentioned case was got lodged by the present petitioner namely Gul Asif, against the respondents namely Noor Hassan, Muhammad Tariq, Ameer Hussain and Aziz (hereinafter referred to as the respondents ), with the contentions that on 23.02.2019, at about 8:00 a.m., when Noman Asif PW was going to his school, the respondents on gun-point, while picking and throwing him in a vehicle, had taken him, near shrine of Baba Sheikh Ismail, where they demanded him to remove the pant, but he refused, whereupon they started beating him; he raised hue and cry , which attracted Imam Din and Ashiq Hussain PWs, whereupon the respondents fled away .
3. After registration of the FIR, the investigation was started, during which Noman Asif victim had got recorded a statement under section 161, Cr.P.C., whereby he had fully nominated and implicated the respondents to be the persons, who had forcibly lifted him from a place and taken to the above mentioned other , where, for the purpose of sodomy , had removed his pant, but when he refused and resisted, all had beaten him. This witness had also stated that when due to his hue and cry, Imam Din and Ashiq Hussain PWs arrived at the spot, the respondents fled away , whereupon a shalwar was provided to him and he while wearing it, returned home. The Police had completed the proceedings and submitted the report under section 173, Cr.P.C. But the learned trial court had behaved in the above stated manner .
4. Section 265-D, Cr.P.C., relates to the material, which at the time of framing of charge, should have been perused and considered by the trial court. The said provision reads as under: "265-D. When charge is to be framed . If, after perusing the police report or, as the case may be, the complaint, and all other documents and statements filed by the prosecution, the Court is of opinion that there is ground for proceedings with the trial of the accused it shall frame in writing a charge against the accused."
5. The above mentioned provision indicat es that for the purpose of framing a charge, the Court should consult the police report, complaint, the documents and the statements filed by the prosecution and nothing else. On the basis of the said material, the Court has to decide whether cognizance is to be taken by it or not.
6. Furthermore, the prosecution agency , under the Punjab Criminal Prosecution Service (Constitution, Functions and Powers) Act 2006, enjoys the power to delete or add an offence, according to the facts and evidence collected, by the police, before submitting report under section 173, Cr.P.C., to the Court. Under the said law, it is the District Prosecutor to scrutinize the available record/evidence and applicability of an offence against an accused. At that stage, an of fence can.be deleted or added by the said forum.
7. In this case, when the Prosecution Agency while scrutinizing and analyzing, the material on the record and holding applicability of offences under sections 337-A(i)/337-L(2)/367-A/377/51 1, P.P.C. had forwarded the report under section 173, Cr.P.C. to the learned trial Court, then why and how the said learned Court had deleted the offences under sections 367-A/377/51 1, P.P.C. No explanation or answer to the said question is available in the order under revision.
8. As stated above, in the matter in hand, the complaint, FIR and statements under section 161, Cr.P.C., showing prima facie attraction of the offences under sections 367-A/377/51 1, P.P.C., against the respondents were available before the Court, but it while ignoring the same and passing the order under revisio n had deviated from the powers given under the above stated section 265-D of Cr .P.C.
9. Resultantly , the revision petition in hand is allowed , impugned order is set aside, with a direction to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Talagang, to take up the file and carry on the proceedings, warranted under the law .