This petition arises from the judgment of the learned Special Judicial Magistrate dated 31.5.2006, whereby the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to pay fine of Rs, 20.000/- and in default to suffer one month S.I. under Section 6 of West Pakistan Pure Food Ordinance, 1960. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Arifwala on 20th of June 2006, maintaining the sentence awarded by the learned Special Judge Magistrate.
2. The charge against the petitioner was framed for keeping substandard material and on his statement recorded under Section 164 as well as 342 Cr.P.C. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced as aforesaid.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the procedure adopted by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate is totally against the law as the petitioner has been condemned unheard; that the procedure as provided under Section 243 Cr.P.C. has not been followed by the learned Magistrate, that the learned Magistrate has proceeded to record the statement under Section 164 as well as 342 Cr.P.C. which cannot be recorded jointly and that prior to conviction and award of sentence to the petitioner the learned Magistrate had failed to give show cause as required under Section 243 Cr.P.C.
4. The learned Deputy Prosecutor General while representing the State has not been able to controvert, the legal stand, taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. After giving through the provisions of Section 243 Cr.P.C., I am of the considered opinion that the legal objection raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner carriers weight and is not without substance. Before awarding the sentence to the petitioner the trial Court was under an obligation to ask the petitioner, after he had pleaded guilty and had made admission of the charge, to show- cause as to why he should not be convicted and sentenced. This exercise was not undertaken by the learned trial Magistrate. Section 243 Cr.P.C. is reproduced hereunder for easy reference: "243. Conviction on admission of truth of accusation.--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."
6. It is evident from the above that the requirement of show cause notice is mandatory and the purpose behind the enactment of this provision is to avoid involuntary admission. It cannot be denied that accused persons are often induced to make admission of guilt and may plead guilty under promise or hope that nominal sentence would be imposed. Moreover, due to low literacy rate in our country an accused may not known the implications of plea of guilt. Since the mandatory requirement of Section 243 Cr.P.C. was not fulfilled by the learned Magistrate and was overlooked by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in appeal as well, therefore, the conviction and sentence of the petitioner is bad in law and not sustainable. Insofar as recording of joint statement under Sections 164 and 342 Cr.P.C. is concerned, the record reveals that the learned Special Judicial Magistrate had proceeded to record both the statements jointly without realizing that under the law such a course could not be adopted. Reference is made to the case of Ghulam Sarwar v. The State (1996 P.Cr. L.J. 1853).
7. For what has been stated above, this revision is Accepted and the order of the learned Special Judicial Magistrate dated 31.5.2006 as well as the Appellate Court dated 20.6.2006 is set aside.
There shall be no order as to costs.