' ALI NAWAZ CHOWHAN, J.--- This is a revision petition under section 439 of the Cr.P.C. Against the order of the Judge Suppression of Terrorist Activities, Multan dated 14-12-1999, whereby the learned Court had rejected the application of the petitioner and six others with him seeking deletion of section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code which has been included as an offence in the charge.
2. The matter relates to F.I.R. No,114 of 1994 lodged at Police Station Jalla Arain, District Lodhran. The petitioner Muhammad Abdullah had made an application for amendment of the charge through deletion of section 302. P.P.C as according to him a charge under section 324, P.P.0 was only made out against him and his co-accused.
3. The occurrence relates to Chak No,389/WB, Tehsil Dunyapur, District Lodhran. It is the story of Muhammad Abdullah petitioner that the respondent side while armed with guns and rifles launched an assault actuated with a desire of forcibly occupying 4-1/2 acres of land in the same Chak and while doing so committed the murder of two persons named Muhammad Jaffar son of Abdullah and Jaffar Hussain son of Wasat who were relations of the petitioners. While also assaulting Muhammad Younis who suffered injuries on his face. He became the first informer of F.I.R. No,114 of 1994 which was lodged on the same day at Police Staiton Jalla Arain under section 302/324/148/149, P.P.0 while specifically nominating the accused. It was alleged that a counter-F.I.R.
No,120 of 1994 under section 324/447/511/114/148/149, P.P.C was registered by the police suhborned by the influential opposite-party against a number of persons related to the petitioner with the purpose of rendering the defence helpless in the F.I.R. Lodged by the petitioner. That Liaqat Ali, S.- I./S.H.O. Became an interested party not only on account of the influence of the other side but also because of a criminal miscellaneous petition filed against him and, the bailiff had recovered the detenus illegally held by him and on account of which he was burdened with costs by an order of this Court dated 10-11-1994. That to wreak vengeance against such a treatment at the instance of the petitioner side the S.H.O. Played a havoc with the murder case lodged by the petitioner and gave his opinion that the accused party had acted in self-defence and recommended that the petitioner party should be prosecuted under section 324/447/511/148/149, P.P.C.
4. That the 'matter was also investigated by a D.S.P. Of the Range Crimes, Multan. About whom it was also alleged that he was not fair when he gave an opinion that "let the Court determine the role of the petitioner side". The investigation is said to have been conducted even by the S.P., Crime Branch, Lahore who concurred with the opinion of the S.H.O. And the D.S.P. Range Crime.
5. That on the directions of the Court the S.H.O. While submitting the challan against the petitioners proceeded to add section 302 to the offences under section 324/447/148/149, P.P.C. Although in the various investigations there was no recommendation for adding section 302, P.P.C.
6. The case was initially submitted before the Special Court constituted under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities Act, 1975, Multan. But it was later transferred to the Special Court constituted under Anti-Terrorist Act, 1997 in view of a writ petition bearing No,8304 of 1997. Although this writ petition was dismissed, but a direction was given to the Special Court under the 1997 Act to try out the cases and the cross-version and decide the matter in one go. The matter is, therefore, now pending before the Anti-Terrorism Court, Multan constituted under the 1997 Act.
7. The learned Special Judge vide his order dated 14-12-1999 dismissed an application made by the petitioner wherein he had prayed for the deletion of the charge under section 302, P.P.C. On account of the challan in the cross-F.I.R lodged against him and others.
8. The main ground taken by the petitioner before this Court and even in the Court below was that the persons who had been killed were in fact relations of the petitioner and were with him at the relevant time, who had been murdered by the opposite side. Whereas, it was the contention of the other side that they were killed by the firing of the petitioner side while their opposite side was acting in private defence and nobody was injured on account of their firing.
9. The learned Judge of the Anti-Terrorist Court while passing his orders of 14-12-1999 opined that prima facie there was sufficient evidence on the record for framing of the charge under section 302, P.P.0 against the petitioners.
10. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Sardar Latif Khan Khosa, Advocate at length.
11. Charge has different connotations for different laws. According to the Wharton's Lexicon it means to prefer an accusation against one (AIR 1953 Mad. 507).
' Charge corresponds to the word indictment in the English Law. Indictment in an accusation in writing found and presented by a grand jury. A charge is merely an indictment which must be proved at trial beyond a reasonable doubt before defendant may be convicted. U.S. v. Zovluck, D.C.N.Y., 274 F. Supp. 385, 390. An indictment is only an accusation; it is the physical means by which a defendant is brought to trial. Its sole purpose is to identify defendant's alleged offence, and it is not evidence that offence charged was committed and may not be considered as evidence by jury during its deliberations. U.S. v. Glaziou, C. A. N. Y., 402 F.2d 8,
15. A charge is also defined as a precise formulation of specific accusation made against a person, who is intended to know its nature the very early stage of a trial Waroo v. Emperior 49 Cr.L.J 72(81) and AIR 1948 Sindh 40.
12. Thus, charge is equal to a statement which reflects an offence with which the accused is to be confronted for the trial showing that every legal condition required by law to constitute the offence charged had been fulfilled at the stage of the framing of the charge. Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code empowers a Court to alter or add to any charge at any time before a judgment is pronounced. Chapter XLII-A deals with trials before High Court and Courts of Sessions. Section 265- D, Cr.P.C. Under this Chapter deals with the framing of the charge and reads as follows:-- "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 proceeding with the trial of the accused it shall frame in writing a charge against the accused."
13. Therefore, a Court after perusing a police report and all other documents and statements which are filed by the prosecution has to come to an opinion that prima facia an offence is made out against an accused and he should face trial and after which a charge is framed against him in writing so that he is aware precisely of what he has to confront.
14. The framing of the charge does not per se mean that the accused is held guilty. He is only made aware about the case of the prosecution borne out on the record referred to section 265-D, Cr.P.0 upon which he has to be rosecuted. The object of the charge being just to enable the accused to know about the precise accusations against him and nothing more. This does not preclude him from advancing his version neither a charge has ever constrained a Court nor does it place any clog on the Court to arrive at a judgment of conviction or otherwise. It, therefore, just enables the Court to start with the trial and after recording evidence decide whether a charge has been established beyond reasonable doubt against the accused. Consequently, it is the ultimate conclusions reached by the Court which are to determine as to what offence an accused had committed or whether at all a case had been made out against him.
15. A charge once framed does not become rigid and can be subjected to alteration or change and that is why a power under section 227 of the Cr.P.C. Has been given to the Court in this respect.
16. Under the criminal visitorial jurisdiction this Court has to satisfy itself about the correctness, legality or propriety of any order recorded or passed by an inferior Court. A revisional jurisdiction cannot be used for interrupting or subverting the normal criminal proceedings and, unless an order under reference was found tainted with miscarriage of justice it cannot be knocked out.
17. After going through the record under reference we are of the view that the order does not suffer from any illegality or propriety nor is tainted with any miscarriage of justice to call for interference.
We find no merits in the revision petition. It is dismissed in limine.