1991 P Cr (PLP)
SHARIF KHAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1991 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | SHARIF KHAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 P Cr (PLP) (SHARIF KHAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Hasnat Ahmad Khan for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 243 & 537
West Pakistan Pure Food Ordinance (VII of 1960) S.23(1)(a)
Plea of guilty--Conviction, legality of
Accused pleaded guilty to charge and was convicted forthwith without giving him notice to show cause as to why he should not be convicted on pica of guilt
Provisions of S.243, Cr.P.C. were mandatory in nature hence its violation was tantamount to illegality not curable under S.537, Cr.P.C: --Conviction and sentence was set aside and case was sent back for retrial in accordance with law.
Judgment & Decree
Date of hearing: 5th May, 1991. Sharif Khan, petitioner, was tried under section 23(1)(a) of West Pakistan Pure Food Ordinance, 1960, on the charge that the Maida found in the Khalid Flour Mills contained moisture in excess of the prescribed limit of 13.0 per cent. He pleaded guilty to the charge and the trial Court convicted and sentenced him forthwith.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after his confession, the trial Court should have asked the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be convicted on the basis of confession made by him. The learned counsel for the State is not in a position to controvert him.
3. I have considered the matter carefully. I feel persuaded to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner. The relevant provisions of law may be I reproduced advantageously:-- "Section 243, Cr.P.C.
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 The plain reading of this section will show that the trial Court, before convicting the accused, was required to give further notice to the accused asking him to show cause as to why he should not be convicted on the plea of guilt. Since the requirement of law was/is of mandatory nature, therefore, its violation tantamounts to illegality, which is not curable under section 537, Cr.P.C.
4. Pursuant to the above discussion, the revision is accepted. The conviction and sentence of the petitioner is set aside and the case is sent back to the trial I Court for retrial in accordance with law. The petitioner was on bail at the time of hearing the appeal. On the rejection of his appeal, he was taken into custody and sent to jail. Since the order of his conviction is set aside, therefore, he shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case. He will appear before the trial Court on 28-5-1991. S.A./S-942/L Revision accepted.