' Taj Mohammad petitioner was convicted by Divisional Traffic Magistrate, Sargoaha Division, on 3- 4-1967, under section 4.43/112, 4.47/112, 4.57/112, 5.2/112 and 5.50/112 and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs, 300. He preferred an appeal against his convictions and sentences but the same was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lyallpur. Now he has come up in revision.
2. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial Court had violated the mandatory provisions of section 263, Cr. P. C by omitting to mention the offences complained of and also by not recording the plea of the accused and the finding with a brief statement of reasons therefor. He further contended that the trial Court did not specify under what offences the petitioner was convicted nor did he impose sentence for each offence separately. He also contended that the maximum sentence under section 112 of the Motor Vehicles Ordinance was R3.
100.
3. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner carry much weight, The trial Court did not comply with the mandatory provisions of section 263, Cr. P. C. As a result of which I accept this revision and set aside the impugned orders. The amount of fine, if deposited, shall be refunded to the petitioner. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.