1. ' The petitioner has challenged orders, dated 19-2-2003 amending the charge in the trial and dated 7-5-2003 whereby application of the petitioner/complainant for continuation of the trial without re-summoning of P.Ws. Was dismissed.
2. ' The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner lodged F.I.R. No,324, dated 11-6-2000 under sections 302/148/149/109, P.P.C. At Police Station Langrana, Jhang against respondents Nos.1 to 10 for murder of his brother Saeed Muhammad. After completion of the investigation report under section 173, Cr.P.C. Was submitted on 11-11-2000 in the A.T.C. Court, Faisalabad. Thereafter, the case was transferred to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Jhang on 19-2-2001 and was entrusted to the present trial Court on 3-10-2001. The charge against the accused was framed on 3-12-2001. Till 19-2-2003 six P.Ws. Were examined. Out of them four witnesses were formal while P.W.3 and P.W.4 were the eye-witnesses but their cross-examination was reserved by the learned defence counsel.
3. ' On 10-12-2002 the petitioner filed a Writ Petition No,21137 of 2002 in this Court seeking direction for early conclusion of the trial which came up for hearing before me on 11-12-2002 and report was called for from the trial Court on 6-5-2003. After receiving report from the trial Court, it was directed to conclude the trial within a period of six months. During pendency of writ petition after submission of report the trial Court altered the charge on 19-2-2003. The relevant part of the original charge framed on 3-12-2000 was as under:- ' That on the above date, time and place you accused in furtherance of your common intention committed Qatal-e-Amd of Said Ahmad with fire-arms and thus, your offence is covered under section 302/34, P.P.C. Which is within the cognizance of this Court."
4. ' After amendment the charge reads as under:--- "That you accused committed Qatl-e-Amd of Said Ahmad by firing with deadly weapons and thus you committed an offence punishable under section 109 read with sections 302/148/149 of P.P.C.
5. Which is within the cognizance of this Court."
6. ' The P.Ws. Were re-summoned for 24-2-2003 vide order, dated 19-2-2003.
7. ' The application moved by the petitioner/complainant with the request to continue with the trial without recalling the witnesses was dismissed vide the impugned order, dated 7-5-2003. Hence this petition.
8. ' Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the accused were the same as well the date and place of occurrence was the same and by inadvertence section 34, P.P.C. Was mentioned in the charge instead of section 148/149, P.P.C. And the amendment in the charge was not so material and significant to start the trial de novo; that the trial Court was to proceed forthwith with the trial as case of either parties had not been prejudiced. Further adds that as per section 228, Cr.P.C. If the charge is altered and in the opinion of the Court the case is not likely to prejudice the accused in his defence or the prosecutor in the conduct of the case the Court may in its discretion after altering the charge proceed with the trial as if the altered charge had been the original charge; that the trial Court wrongly exercised the jurisdiction under section 231, Cr.P.C. In support of the petition he has placed reliance on Nadir Shah v. State 1980 SCM R 402, Muhammad Afzal v. State 1990 SCM R 267 and Muhammad Bakhsh v. State 1968 PCr.LJ 1901.
9. ' The petition has been opposed by learned counsel for the contesting respondents who has argued that under section 231, Cr.P.C. After amendment of the charge the trial Court was duty bound to recall the witnesses examined before the amendment of the charge. In support of his contention he has placed reliance on S. Hifazat Hussain v. The State 1987 PCr.LJ 403; Ghulam Muhammad Lutfee v. The State 1986 PCr.LJ 1236; Syed Deedar Ali v. State 1987 M LD 1509 and Noor- ulIslam Azeezi v. Crown PLD 1950 Dhaka 9.
10. ' Learned counsel for the State has supported the impugned orders. I have given due consideration to the contentions raised at the bar and perused the record and examined the case-law referred to by learned counsel for the parties.
11. ' I have given due consideration to the contentions raised at the bar and perused the record and examined the case-law referred to by learned counsel for the parties.
12. ' A charge is precise formulation of the specific acquisition made against a person who is entitled to know its nature at the early stage. The purpose of a charge is to tell an accused as precisely and concisely as possible the matter in which he is charged and must convey to him with sufficient clearances and certainty what the prosecution intends to prove against him and of which he will have to clear himself.
13. ' Admittedly sections 148 and 149, P.P.C. Were mentioned in the F.I.R. The time, date and place of occurrence and the accused in the original charge as well as in the amended charge are the same. The mere difference in the original charge and in the amended charge is of addition of section 148/149, P.P.C. After amendment in the charge neither the petitioner nor the prosecutor had requested the trial Court to summon the witnesses already examined by the trial Court. It is also to be noticed that those witnesses are of formal in nature. Only chief examination of material witnesses/eye-witnesses has been recorded. They are yet to be cross-examined by the defence, therefore, neither case of the accused nor of the prosecution was prejudiced if the trial Court had proceeded with the trial without recalling of the witnesses. No doubt under section 227, Cr.P.C. The Court has ample power to alter or add any charge at any time before the judgment is pronounced, but section 228, Cr.P.C. Provides that if the charge is framed or altered or addition made under section 227, Cr.P.C. Is such that proceeding immediately with the trial is not likely, in the opinion of the Court, to prejudice the accused in his defence or the prosecutor in conduct of the case, the Court may in its discretion after such charge or alteration has been made or framed proceeding with the trial as if the charge or altered charge had the original charge. Under section 231, Cr.P.C.
14. After alteration of the charge the prosecutor and the accused are allowed to recall or re-summon the witnesses "with reference to such alteration or addition" any witness who may have been examined and also to call any further witness whom the Court may think it material. Section 231, Cr.P.C. Provides that when the charge is altered the prosecutor and the accused shall be allowed to recall or re-summon and examine any witnesses who have already been examined with reference to such alteration or addition, but in the instant case neither the accused nor the prosecutor had made any request for re-summoning of the witnesses nor the stage with reference to such alteration had reached as only the chief examination of two eye-witnesses has been recorded. It appears that the learned trial Court has ignored the application of section 228 or 229, Cr.P.C. To the facts of the instant case. The time, place and accused are the same. There was no need to re- summon the P.Ws., therefore, I find that the trial of the case has already been delayed for a period of about 3 years and no useful purpose can be served by further delaying the same by re- summoning of the witnesses. There was no likelihood that any prejudice was to be caused to the accused in their defence by not re-summoning the P.Ws. Early conclusion of the trial is not only right of the accused but also of the complainant, therefore, this petition is allowed and the impugned order, dated 6-5-2003 is set aside. The trial Court. Is directed to proceed with the trial expeditiously and conclude the same in terms of order, dated 6-5-2003 passed in Writ Petition No,21137 of 2003.