2008 PLP 358 (MLD)

MIAN MUHAMMAD NAJUM UZ ZAMAN, J.

Petitioner was tried by Allaqa Magistrate in case F.I.R. No.126 of 2006, dated 27-4-2006 for the offence under sections 382/411, P.P.C. registered at Police Station City Pakpattan Sharif, District Pakpattan, who vide order, dated 21-10-2006 on the basis of confessional statement of the petitioner convicted him under section 382, P.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five months and fifteen days and to pay Rs.10,000 as fine, or in default whereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for two months. Petitioner was also given benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Thereafter complainant of this case namely Jafar Ali (respondent No.2) challenged the said order by way of tiling criminal revision before Additional Sessions Judge, Pakpattan Sharif seeking enhancement of sentence of the petitioner. Learned revisional Court vide order, dated 19-12-2006 in view of section 243, Cr.P.C. remanded the case to the trial Court for decision afresh in accordance with law. Through this petition under section 561-A, Cr.P.C., legality of the said order has been challenged.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and with their assistance also perused section 243, Cr.P.C. as well as data available on the record. Section 243, Cr.P.C. reads as under: "Conviction on admission of truth of accusation. If the accused admits that he has committed the offence [with which he is charged], his admission shall be recorded as nearly as possible in the words used by him; and, if he shows no sufficient cause why he should not be convicted, the Magistrate may convict him accordingly". Bare perusal of the said section reveals that learned trial Court has to record confessional statement of the accused as nearly as possible in the words used by him and after recording the same if accused shows no sufficient cause why he should not be convicted, the Magistrate may convict him accordingly. In the present case, learned trial Court while recording confessional statement of the accused/petitioner has not committed any illegality or violated provisions of section 243, Cr.P.C. I wonder as to how learned revisional Court has come to the conclusion that provisions of section 243, Cr.P.C., have been violated. Record of this Court reveals that petitioner has already undergone five months and fifteen days as well as paid fine imposed by the trial Court: In the circumstances I see no justification for remanding the matter to the trial Court for fresh trial. Accordingly impugned order, dated 19-12-2006 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Pakpattan Sharif being not sustainable, the same is set aside. H.B.T./M-476/L Order Accordingly.