2014 PLP 2207 (YLR)

SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.

Muhammad Amin son of Muhammad Ibraheem, resident of Ranjha Dawa Khana Sikhanwala Bangla, Sharaqpur Shareef, District Sheikhupura, appellant was involved in case F.I.R. No.161, dated 5-4-2012, offence under sections 186, 506, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Sharaqpur Sharif, District Sheikhupura. Subsequently, the complainant moved an application for addition of offences under sections 27(3) & 27(4) of the Drugs Act, 1976, which was allowed. The case came up before the Drug Court and the learned trial Court seized with the matter in terms of judgment 5-7-2013 convicted the appellant under section 27(3) of the Drugs Act, 1976 and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for one year with fine of Rs.10,000 and in case of default in payment thereof, to further undergo S.I. for one month. Under section 27(4) of the Drug Act, the appellant was sentenced to pay fine of Rs.30,000 and in case of default in payment thereof, to undergo S.I. for two months. The appellant has assailed his conviction and sentence through filing the instant appeal.

2. Facts of the case, in brief necessary for disposal of the lis in hand, are that Azeem Ahmed Drug Inspector lodged the above case thereby narrating the story that he along with Munawar Hussain his subordinate official, in routine checking of medical stores, visited Ranjha Medical Store and found that the same was being run in violation to the provisions of Drugs Act, 1976. The complainant sealed the store on which Muhammad Ameen/proprietor of the store/appellant herein forcibly snatched case property Form and Form No.5 from the complainant and while extending threats of dire consequences made his good escape. Subsequently on the application moved by the complainant, provisions of sections 27(3) and 27(4) of the Drugs Act, 1976 were also added. After completion of investigation, the challan came up before Drug Court, Lahore; wherein primarily charge was framed on 12-11-2012 to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Subsequently on 5-7-2013 the learned Law Officer pointed out that the accused was not charge-sheeted under sections 27(3) & 27(4) of the Drugs Act, 1976 and accordingly fresh charge was framed, however, while replying to the specific question "Do you plead guilty to the charge?" the accused pleaded guilty. The learned trial Court also recorded confessional statement of the appellant and thereafter without recording any evidence vide judgment dated 5-7-2013 convicted him the afore-stated terms, which is under challenge through the instant appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant while advancing his arguments submitted that at the time of framing of charge by the learned trial Court first time on 12-11-2012, the appellant had not pleaded guilty rather claimed trial, however, on 5-7-2013, on the pointing out by the learned Law Officer, the charge was amended. Learned counsel further contended that nevertheless the appellant had pleaded guilty at the time of framing of subsequent charge, however, as at the time of framing of first charge the appellant had not pleaded guilty and opted to face trial, therefore, it was incumbent upon the learned trial Court to have recorded independent evidence before forming any opinion qua guilty of the accused. Learned counsel emphasized that the recording of conviction by the learned trial Court in a hasty manner on the same day of framing of/charge is not sustainable in the eyes of law, therefore, it is a fit case for its remand to the learned trial Court. Learned counsel, finally submitted that in case the Court arrives at the conclusion to remand the case then sentence inflicted upon the appellant being short one, the same may be suspended.

4. Learned DDPP conceded the scheme of law put forth by learned counsel for the appellant.

5. We have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant, as well as, learned DDPP and perused the record available on file.

6. There is no cavil to this proposi-tion that after submission of challan on 12-11-2012, formal charge was framed by the learned trial Court to which the appellant had not pleaded guilty rather claimed trial. It was subsequently after more than eight months when on 5-7-2013 the learned Law Officer had pointed out for amending the charge and accordingly a fresh/amended charge was framed to which the appellant pleaded guilty. Now the question arises whether the learned trial Court was justified in observing that there was no need to record evidence and opted to record conviction simply on the basis of statement of the accused/appellant, we are of the considered view that the superior courts always support that even if the accused pleads guilty during the course of trial, in addition to his plea, independent evidence should be gathered by the court to arrive at a just conclusion. Reliance in this regard is placed on the dictum of law in the case of King Emperor v. Kasim Walad Mohamed Saffer (AIR 1925 Sind 188), wherein it was held as under:-- "Independent evidence should be taken by Court notwithstanding accused's plea of guilty." Moreover, the similar view was affirmed by this Court in the cases of Atif Abaidullah v. State 2010 MLD 599 and Farrukh Shehzad v. The State (2012 PCr.LJ 352); wherein it was held that:-- "..Admission of guilt by accused during trial

Procedure

When the accused pleads guilty during the course of trial in addition to his plea, Independent evidence should be taken by the court." Hence, in the foregoing circumstances we have been persuaded to hold that the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial Court by virtue of judgment dated 5-7-2013 is not sustainable in the eyes of law, therefore, the same is set aside and the case is remanded back to the learned trial Court to record the evidence of the prosecution as well as that of the defence and then conclude the trial while applying its independent judicious mind without being prejudiced from the findings made hereinabove.

7. Before parting with this judgment, learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out that prior to conclusion of trial, the appellant was enjoying the concession of bail during the pendency of trial. Moreover, the sentence inflicted by the learned trial Court is only one year, therefore, the same being short one is hereby suspended subject to furnishing surety bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.

8. Case remanded. MH/M-53/L Case remanded.