1991 P Cr (PLP)

S. 243

Accused should not be convicted on the sole admission of the truth of accusation and he should be informed by the Court that despite his confession he as a matter of right can show cause as to why he should not be convicted and that in any case after confession he should be given an opportunity to show such cause which should specifically be discussed and determined. Irshad Hussain Jaffri for Petitioner. Nemo for the State. Date of hearing: 30th May, 1990. The facts leading to this revision briefly are that challan under section 411, P.P.C. was submitted against Shera petitioner in the Court of Magistrate 1stClass, Chichawatni. The charge was framed and read over to him. He pleaded guilty. So, he was convicted and sentenced to two years' R.I. on 27-4-1987. On appeal the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner, reduced his sentence from two years to one year's R.I. Hence this revision.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the conviction of the petitioner on his admission of the truth of the accusation is illegal inasmuch as he was not given any opportunity to show cause why he should not be convicted. No one has appeared for the State to contest this petition.

3. I have considered the matter carefully. I feel persuaded to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner. I find that when the charge was read over to the petitioner, he confessed his guilt and the learned Magistrate convicted and sentenced him forthwith. There is nothing on record to show that after his confession he was given any opportunity to show why he should not be convicted. The relevant section may be reproduced advantageously:- "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." From the plain reading of the provision of law reproduced above, it is very much obvious that on confession of the charge, the accused could not be convicted if he could show sufficient cause why he should not be convicted. Since neither the accused was told by the Magistrate that despite admission of the truth of accusation he could show cause why he should not be convicted nor it has been stated in the order that he failed to show sufficient cause why he should not be convicted although he was given an opportunity, therefore, forthwith conviction of the petitioner on the basis of his confession cannot be sustained. Before parting with the judgment I would like to add that it is a matter of common experience that the trial Courts do not comply with the provisions of section 243, Cr.P.C. and the accused persons are convicted as soon as they confess the guilt, or do not claim to be tried although they can be acquitted on showing sufficient cause as to why they should not be convicted despite admission of the truth of the accusation. So it is desirable that the accused should not be convicted on the sole admission of the truth of accusation and they should be informed by the Court that despite their confession they as a matter of right can show cause as to why they should not be convicted and that in any case, after confession, the accused should be given an opportunity to show cause as to why they should not be convicted and the cause shown by them should specifically be discussed and determined.

4. Pursuant to the above discussion, the revision is accepted and the conviction and sentence of the petitioner is set aside. The petitioner has already served the entire sentence, so retrial or remand is not warranted. Disposed of accordingly. N.H.Q./S-807/L ??????????? Revision accepted.