' A case F.I.R.No, 137 dated 11-12-1977 was registered at Police Station Hazro district Attock under sections 406/420/468 and 471, P.P.C. On a complaint by Noor Shah respondent No,2 against Wazir Khan and Ghulam Rasul petitioners. It was alleged in the complaint that the accused defrauded the complainant and about 250 other simple villagers by extending a promise to them that they would be sent abroad for some job and in this way received a sum of Rs,16/17 lacs from them.
Those defrauded persons were asked to come over to Karachi so that they be sent to Jeddah where they learnt that they have reached that place only on 15 days visa for Umra. They accordingly came back and tried to contact the two accused/petitioners. They disappeared with lacs of rupees received by them from the complainant and other villagers. After registration of the case both the accused were challaned. The prosecution, during the trial, examined 43 witnesses and closed its case on 11-2-1981. The statements of accused under section 342, Cr.P.C. Were recorded on 22-2-1981. They examined 3 witnesses in defence on 15-3-1981 whereafter the case was adjourned to 21-3-1981 for arguments. The case was adjourned to 21-3-1981 for recording of remaining defence evidence. On that date, no witness was present and the case was, therefore, adjourned to 24-3-1981 for recording of the remaining defence evidence and also for arguments.
On that date, the Presiding Officer was not present and the case was adjourned to 28-3-1981 for arguments on an application, dated 15-3-1981 under section 234, Cr.P.C. On 28-3-1981 the counsel for the accused was not present and the case was adjourned for arguments on the said application to 8-4-1981. The learned Magistrate vide order, dated 8-4-1981 accepted the said application under section 234, Cr.P.C. And allowed the prosecution to file separate challans against the accused. A revision was filed by the accused against the order, dated 8-4-1981 which was dismissed by learned Sessions Judge, Attock vide impugned order, dated 11-12-1984. It was held by the learned Sessions Judge that the series of acts did not form the same transaction because the accused had defrauded various persons at different times and at different places. It was further held that they committed offences during a period of more than one year and as such under section 233, Cr.P.C. They were to be charged and tried separately for other distinct offences. (The dates of various orders given in paras. 3 and 4 of the petition in hand are not correct. I have given above the dates after referring to the original record of the trial Court).
2. In support of this petition it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that he was not trying to avoid the trial; that he was not praying for quashment of the proceedings against the petitioners; and that he wanted only one trial against them. The only argument addressed by the learned counsel for the petitioners was that the petition under section 234, Cr.P.C., dated 15-3-1981 was a belated application and filed with mala fides because a few of the prosecution witnesses made statements in favour of the petitioners and did not support the prosecution during the trial of the case. He relied upon Muhammad Siddique v. The State 1980 P Cr. L J 769 and Noor Khan v. The State PLD 1958 Lah.
1052.
I have considered the above arguments and find them without any substance. The accused prima facie defrauded a large number of persons at various places and at different times. They forged various documents in furtherance of their fraudulent acts. They received lacs of rupees from different persons at different occasions. From the facts disclosed by the prosecution it cannot be said that the acts of the accused were so connected together as to form the same transaction justifying one trial under section 235, Cr.P.C. The accused can be said to have committed same kind of offences but they certainly did not commit offences so as to form the same transaction. As such provisions of section 235, Cr.P.C. Would not be attracted to the facts and circumstances of this case. The accused were rightly ordered to be charged and tried separately under section 233, Cr.P.C. Which was the general rule. The case of the petitioners is not coverd by the exception provided in section 235, Cr.P.C. I have gone through the two judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The facts of both these judgments are totally different from the facts of the case in hand. In one of these cases the accused were charged for offences under section 302, P.P.C. In the case of Muhammad Siddique, the accused had first murdered Dilawar and thereafter went to the house of Ghulam Hussain complainant and fired at Muhammad Paryal another deceased of the same case. This was obviously a case where the act of the accused could be said to nave formed the same transaction. The case of Noor Khan pertained to possession of Charas and opium by the accused and its recovery from his shop. He was charged under section 61 of the Excise Act and section 9 of the Opium Act in one trial and sentenced to one year's R.I. On each count. It was, therefore, held that the conviction in one trial for two offences was legal. The two judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners were of no help to them.
4. In view of the above, I find no merits in this petition which is accordingly dismissed in Mine.
5. The record of the trial Court be remitted back immediately.