Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: SHARIF KHAN VS Respondent: THE STATE
Court Name: Lahore High Court Judge(s): Muhammad Munir Khan Title: SHARIF KHAN vs THE STATE Case No.: Criminal Revision No.208 of 1989 Date of Judgment:1991-05-05 Reported As: 1991 P Cr. L J 1761 Result: Revision accepted
JUDGMENT
JUDGMENT 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 tantamount 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
---
## Page 2
be released forthwith if not required in any other case. He will appear before the trial Court on 28- 5-1991.