1970 P Cr (PLP)

(iii) The prosecution had been unfair in getting him prosecuted separately for embezzlement of- (a) a sum of Rs. 42,000 for which he was awarded 7 years rigorous imprisonment ; (b) a sum of Rs.,341 in Special Case No. 33 of 1968; and, (c) a sum of Rs. 8020.65 in Special Case No. 135 of 1968. (iv) Since on the 2nd July, 1968, he was serving out sentence for non-payment of fine only, the direction that the substantive sentences in Special Cases Nos. 33 of 1968 and 135 of 1968 shall run concurrently, deprived him of the benefit of concurrent service.

3. I have examined the record. On the 30th November 1964, the appellant was sentenced to 7 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 48,000 or in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 3i years. On the 2nd July 1968, he was serving the substantive sentence when he pleaded guilty in Special Case No. 33 of 1968 and No. 135 of 1968.

4. Section 6 of the Pakistan Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1958, provides that provisions of Chapter XX of the Code of -Criminal Procedure shall apply to' the trial of cases under that Act. Section 242, Cr. P. C. provide; that when the accused appears, the particulars of the offence of which he is accused shall be stated to hiin, and he snail be asked if he has any cause to show why he should not be convicted. Section 243 runs as below "If the accused admits that he has committed the offence of which he is accused, 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." It follows that the learned Special Judge was justified in acting upon the plea of guilty and in passing the impugned order. Evidently, the trial Court was not required to record any evidence in support of the accusation before it could call on the accused to plead guilty and to act upon that plea the contention raised by the appellant is without force.

5. The records show that the appellant freely. On his own showing the appellant decided to plead guilty as thereby he stood to gain in advantage of serving the substantive sentences in these cases concurrently. The contention that he had been "induced" by the prosecution to plead guilty is not established. It is without force.

6. The sentences passed in Special Cases Nos. 33 of 1968 and 135 of 1968 are quite appropriate. They shall be enforced, in terms, regardless of the fact whether or not the appellant gets any advantage that h4 expected therefrom, while serving his sentence of 7 Vicars' R. I. relating to embezzlement of Rs. 42,000.

7. Section 412 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides :- . " . . . . . . . where an accused person has pleaded guilty and has been convicted by . . . . . a Court of Session . . . . . on such plea, there shall be no appeal except as to the exent or legality of the sentence." As stated above, the sentences are quite legal and appropriate.

7. There is no force in the appeal. It is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.