1996 P Cr (PLP)

Malik Hamesh Gul Khan for the State. Date of hearing: 28th February, 1996. This common judgment shall dispose of Criminal Revisions Nos. l and 2 of 1996, as both have arisen out of the same judgment, dated 14-11-1995 of the learned Sessions Judge, Tank, whereby the criminal appeals were dismissed and orders of conviction passed under sections 13 and 16, Arms Ordinance by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kulachi on 6-4-1995 were upheld.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that according to F.I.R. No.20, petitioner Muhammad Nasir was allegedly found in possession of a .12 bore S.B. shotgun with twenty-two live cartridges but there is no mention of cartridges in the charge framed by the trial Court. He submitted that in both the cases challans were put in Court on 6-4-1995 and on the same day they were convicted on the plea of guilt without complying with the mandatory provisions of sections 241-A, 242 and 243, Cr.P.C. and that no show-cause notices were issued to them before their conviction. He lastly submitted that though the learned Appellate Court has taken into consideration that though the mandatory provisions of the aforesaid sections of law were not complied with, yet the point which weighed before it was that, the appeals were barred by time.

3. On contrary, learned counsel for the State opposed the aforesaid submissions and supported the impugned orders.

4. I have anxiously considered the respective arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and scrutinized record of the case with their assistance.

5. By not complying with the mandatory provisions of sections 241-A, 242 and

243. Cr.P.C., great injustice has been caused. The charges were also not framed properly. It has been held in PLD 1995 Pesh. 103 that in such-like eventualities, a time-barred appeal can be treated as a revision in order to rectify every error of the trial Court. The accused/petitioner should not have been convicted straightaway on the plea of guilt and the trial Court was required to have given an opportunity to the accused to show cause of the allegations brought against them. In this view of the matter, reference can be made to 1991 1 PCr.LJ 1709, 1992 PCr.LJ 1575 and 1993 PCr.LJ 1607.

6. For the reasons aforesaid, the impugned orders of the trial Court are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, while accepting both the revision petitions, the order of the Courts below are set aside. The time-barred appeals before the lower Appellate Court are treated as revisions. In this eventuality, the cases should have been remanded to the Appellate Court, but no fruitful purpose will be achieved as the same relief is being granted under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. The case files are, therefore, remitted back to the trial Court with the direction that the mandatory provisions of sections 241-A, 242 and 243, Cr.P.C. should be complied with and proper charges should be framed and, thereafter, to proceed with the cases in accordance with law. The office shall transmit the record back to the trial Court forthwith. N.H.Q./1942/P Revision accepted.