1970 PLP 834 (SCMR)

SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.‑The petitioner has been convicted by the Special Judge on charges framed under section 6 of the East Pakistan Food (Special Courts) Act, 1956 (Act X of 1956) hereinafter called the Act upon the allegations that he kept concealed in his possession a huge quantity of joshi rice and that he carried on business in food grain, namely, rice without any lawful authority, and sentenced under the first count to a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for twenty months and under the second count to a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for eighteen months and a fine of Rs. 1,000 in default to rigorous imprisonment for six months. The sentences of imprisonment were directed to run consecutively. Having been aggrieved by this order the petitioner approached the High Court under Article 98 of the Constitution but the Rule nisi that was originally issued was discharged with only a modification of the sentence, namely, the sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently instead of con secutively. The High Court, however, then went on to confirm the convictions and sentences with the above modification. On behalf of the petitioner it has been contended that the non‑mention in the charge of the notified orders which had been contravened has vitiated the trial. The petitioner was fully apprised of the allegations against him and the mere non‑mention of the notified orders, even if an irregularity, is cured under' section 537 of the Criminal Procedure Code as he has not been prejudiced in any way. The next contention that inasmuch as section 6 of the Act does not specify the amount of fine that can be imposed, the Act is bad, is not tenable. The petitioner has also complained that the High Court under Article 98 of the Constitution has no power to amend or' alter the order of conviction. It can, it is said, only quash it. It has, therefore, been argued that if the sentence was illegal that made the conviction bad on its fact and for that reason the conviction should have been quashed. 7 he High Court did not find the conviction and sentences illegal. It merely directed the sentences of imprisonment to run concurrently to the benefit of the petition. He is not, therefore, aggrieved by this order. As regards the last portion of the order we may point out that it was not appropriate for the High Court to confirm the convictions and sentences, under Article 98 of the Constitution as it has, possibly by oversight, purported to do. This, however, is only a technical defect in the wording of the order. We accordingly dismiss this application. Petition dismissed.