1. The applicants have filed the above petition on the ground, that the formal charge dated 18th October, 1981 framed against them by the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption (Provincial)
2. Karachi, will result in mis--carriage of justice, as unconnected offences have been joined together, in which all the applicants even on the basis of the prosecution allegations, were not jointly responsible for the said offences.
3. The learned Advocate appearing for the State on the other hand sub--mitted, that this charge was very much in existence when Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 937/81 was filed by the present applicants, which was dismissed by this Court and furthermore the above revision petition has been filed after delay of over one year and as such on this ground alone, the above Petition is liable to be dismissed.
4. The complainant who is present in person submitted, that the apple--cants in order to harass the complainant have been moving one or the other applications or Constitution Petition and consequently so far not a single witness has been examined in the trial of the present applicants and as such this Court may be pleased to pass appropriate order, so that, the trial may proceed expeditiously.
5. I have carefully considered the above submissions made by the learned Advocates before me and have gone through the order passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 937/81 as well as charge dated 18th October, 1981 framed against the present applicants, which is Annexure 'A'. It is true, that the Revision Petition has been filed after undue delay and as such on this ground, I could dismiss the above petition. It is also true that this charge existed when Criminal Miscellaneous 937/81 was dismissed by me. However, after hearing the complainant and having seen the methods adopted by the applicants which have resulted in delay of the proceedings and prima facie, the charge in question in respect of the alleged purchase of goods from the Super Market has nothing to do with all the applicants jointly and as such if such a charge is allowed to be main- -tained, then perhaps on this technical ground, the entire trial is likely to vitiated and the complainant in such circumstances would further suffer, on account of such result and even applicants are themselves seeking separation of charges before me.
6. Therefore, in exercise of powers of this Court under section 435, Cr. P.C. Read with sections 439, Cr.
7. P. C. And 561-A, Cr. P. C. And section 1 of the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958, I direct the learned trial Court to separate charges against applicant Ghulam Hamdani, in respect of the incidents mentioned in first 4 paras. Of charge dated 18th October, 198 ( from the said charge, as the remaining three applicants prima facie are not connected with these incidents and consequently joint trial of these offences said to have been committed by applicant Ghulam Hamdani, with the other three applicants, in respect of incidents mentioned in paras. 5, 6, 7 and 8.
8. Of the said charge, will result in miscarriage of justice and conse--quently delay the disposal of charges, that are being levelled against all the applicants jointly.
9. The learned trial Court is directed to frame separate charges in respect of the incidents mentioned in paras. 1, 2, 3 and 4 of charge dated 18t October, 1981 against accused Ghulam Hamdani and try those charge against him separately, as all these incidents are unconnected with each other and cannot be said to be arising out of same incident, so as to warrant joint trial under section 239, Cr.
10. P. C.
11. The above petition stands disposed of in the terms of the above order, with clear directions to the learned trial Court, that on receipt of the copy of this order to forthwith proceed in accordance with this order and dispose of pending cases against the applicants, as expeditiously as possible, as they have been pending since 1981, without recording of evidence of a single witness so far.