' RUSTAM ALI MALIK, J.--- This appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 22-2-2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced to two years' R.I. Along with a fine of Rs,3,000 and in case of default in payment of fine he was to undergo S.I. For one month, in case F.I.R. No,243 of 2004 registered on 21-6-2004 in Police Station Jhal Chakkian, District Sargodha, under section 9(b) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the conviction recorded on the basis of confessional statement is not in accordance with law, therefore, it is liable to be set aside. He has relied on the judgments reported as Khizar Hayat alias Khiru v. The State 2001 M LD 1145 (Lahore); Muhammad Jehangir v. The State and another 1999 M LD 2450; Shera v. The State 1991 PCr.LJ 365 (Lahore).
3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State in opposition has argued that the appellant voluntarily made admission, pleading guilt, which was recorded in accordance with law after observing procedural requirements. She sought support from Nazir Ahmad v. The State PLD 1975 Lah. 304 and Jehanzeb v. The State and another 2002 PCr.LJ 1929.
4. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
5. The views expressed in the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the appellant are in unison that once the charge is framed and the accused pleads not guilty, then the trial has to commence, and admission of guilt subsequently, shall be of no avail and the Court is bound to record evidence.
6. Bare reading of sections 243 and 244, Cr.P.C. Does not provide any restricted meanings. No particular stage or time is provided for recording of confession. It simply provides that if on framing of formal charge the accused does not plead guilty the trial will commence and evidence of the complainant will be recorded. No prohibition is contained in the aforementioned provision of law that pleading not guilty at the time of framing charge will subsequently, debar the Court from recording plea of guilt. The accused may have denied the charge in the first instance but he may after examination of one prosecution witness or in the middle of trial on the advice of his counsel or on his, own understanding, at any time, plead guilty to the charge. There is no reason why such admission of the accused or his so pleading guilty be not accepted when made voluntarily, without coercion and inducement. The Court before acceptance of his plea of guilt has to satisfy itself that it is being made with full understanding of the plea and its implications. The A appellant has not denied his confession in memo. Of appeal or before us. No prejudice has been caused to him. We seek support for our view from the observations recorded in the case of Nazir Ahmad (supra), which escaped notice of the Honourable Judges in Chambers, dealing with cases cited on behalf of the appellant.
6-A. Challan was submitted in the trial Court. Copies were supplied to the accused. Charge was framed and read over to him. He pleaded not guilty. The prosecution evidence was summoned in terms of section 244, Cr.P.C. One prosecution witness was examined and the case was adjourned to 22-2-2005. On this date the accused required the Court to record his confession. He was cautioned and warned that in case such a statement is recorded it may be used against him. He was provided time for thinking over the matter. The case was again called. The appellant reiterated his plea and accepted the guilt. His admission was thus, recorded. He cannot turn round now to question the admission and to wriggle out it. There is no doubt in our mind that the appellant/accused had admitted the guilt on his own without any pressure, coercion, inducement or promise. It was genuine in all respects.
7. 507 grams of heroin was recovered from appellant's possession. Report of Chemical Analyst is positive. The sentence is neither harsh nor excessive. Conviction of the appellant was recorded in accordance with law. No appeal is provided against conviction based on confession except to question the quantum of sentence. Accused is, thus, not entitled to challenge legality of the sentence, in view of the bar under section 412 of Cr.P.C.
8. For what has been discussed above, we are of the view that this appeal is without merit and the same is dismissed accordingly.