1971 P Cr (PLP)
DR. GHULAM MUSTAFA‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
| Citation | 1971 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | DR. GHULAM MUSTAFA‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1971 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1971 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1971 P Cr (PLP) (DR. GHULAM MUSTAFA‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Salim Ahmad Malik for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 243‑Statutory provision to record accused's admission as nearly as may be in accused's own words‑Designed to enable trying Court and superior Courts to know that accused understood that he was really pleading guilty to offence charged.
Judgment & Decree
(7) Offence, proved. Unauthorised construc tion. (8) Value of property respecting which offence committed. Nil. (9) Summary of evidence for prosecution. Prosecution put to the accused. (10) Pleas of the accused and his examination (if any). Confession. (11) Summary of evidence for the defence and under section 540, Cr. P.C. if any. No evidence. (12) The finding and in the case of a conviction a brief statement of the reasons therefor. Convicted. (13) The sentence or other final order. Fined Rs. 50 (14) The date on which the proceedings terminated. (Sd.) M. I. C. Chiniot, 25‑1‑64.
2. It is urged that the conviction was recorded without taking any evidence and the accused stoutly denied that he pleaded guilty. It is further urged that the record shows that the provision of section 243, Cr. P. C., has not been complied with, therefore, the conviction cannot be sustained.
3. On examining the record of the case, I find that the trial Magistrate acted in a mechanical fashion. The column regarding the date of the commission of the offence was not filled. The plea of the accused was not recorded, nor the prosecution allega tions were put to the accused. Therefore, it is obvious that the provisions of section 243, Cr. P. C. has not been complied with. The provision in section 243, Cr. P. C. for the recording of the admission of the accused as nearly as possible in the words of the accused is a salutary provision designed to enable not only the trying Court, but also the superior Courts to know that the accused, understood that he was really pleading guilty to the offence charged. In the instant case, this was not done. In fact, there is no answer of the accused on the record.
4. The result is that the petition is accepted. The convic tion and the sentence are set aside. The fine if paid shall be refunded to the petitioner. Petition accepted.