This order will dispose of Criminal Revision Petitions Nos. 94/81, 95/81, 96/81, 97/81, 98/81, 99/81, 100/81, 101/81, 102/81, 103/81, 104/81. 105/81, 106/81, 107/81, 108/81, 109/81, 11281, 113181 and 114/81. All these petitions have been filed by the' Lahore Municipal Corporation against the consolidated judgment of Mr. Ali Nawaz Chuhan. Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore dated .15th October 1980 accepting the appeals of the respondents/convicts and converting their sentences from subsection (1) of section 162 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979 to that under subsection (2) of section 162 of the said Ordinance and reducing their sentences to a fine of Rs. 100 each or in default thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for fifteen days each. Earlier, the Corporation Magistrate, Lahore, had sentenced the accused /respondents under section 161/162 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979 and sentenced each of them to imprisonment ranging between one to two months, with fine.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the Corporation Magistrate, Lahore, whilst on a round of various areas within the limits of the Lahore Municipal Corporation, found the respondents keeping and maintaining cattle in the prohibited zone. Earlier, the Administrator, Lahore Municipal Corporation, Lahore, by his order dated 24th April 1979 passed under section 69 of the Punjab Local Government Act, 1975, had declared the limits of the said Corporation as a prohibited zone for the purposes of prohibiting the keeping and maintenance of cattle within the said limits and by an Order dated 2nd May 1979 passed under the same section, notified that within two months from the said date, all persons incharge of cattle, would remove the same from the prohibited zone.
Pursuant to the said order by the Magistrate, summary trials were held at the spot. Each respondent was served with a charge-sheet containing the accusation that he was keeping and maintaining cattle within the prohibited zone and that he was liable for offences under section 161/162 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979. The accusation also gave particulars of the relevant place where and the number and nature of the animals so found within the prohibited zone. After framing the charge under his signature, the Magistrate then read out the same to each respondent, raking the signature or thumb impression of the respondent under his statement in writing that the charge had been so read out and explained to him. Each respondent was then asked the question whether he understood the accusation contained in the said charge, whether he admitted his guilt or not and whether he desired to lead any evidence in defence, to which questions in writing each respondent replied to state that he understood the accusation, that he admitted his guilt, had trade a mistake and that he be pardoned and that he did not desire to produce any evidence in defence: After recording the said answers and taking the spot. Each respondent was served with a charge-sheet containing the accusation that he was keeping and maintaining cattle within the prohibited zone and that he was liable for offences under section 161/162 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979. The accusation also gave particulars of the relevant place where and the number and nature of the animals so found within the prohibited zone. After framing the charge under his signature, the Magistrate then read out the same to each respondent, taking the signature or thumb impression of the respondent under his statement in writing that the charge had been so read out and explained to him. Each respondent was then asked the question whether he understood the accusation contained in the said charge, whether he admitted his guilt or not and whether he desired to lead any evidence in defence, to which questions in writing each respondent replied to state that he understood the accusation, that he admitted his guilt, had made a mistake and that he be pardoned and that he did not desire to produce any evidence in defence, After recording the said answers and taking the signature or thumb impression of the respondent thereunder, the Magistrate convicted and sentenced each respondent under section 161/162 of the Punjab local Government Ordinance1999, to simple imprisonment ranging from sae to two months with fine Being aggrieved by their conviction and sentence all the respondent preferred appeals before the Sessions Judge, complaining that they were wrongly sentenced under sub section (1) of section 162 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, for violation of Item No: 3 of Part I of Schedule III thereof instead of under subsection (2) of section 162 for violation of Item No: 36 of Part 11 of the said Schedule: A Learned Additional Sessions Judge, who jointly dealt with all the appeals of the present respondent and of certain other, accepted the said appals and converted the sentence to that under section 162 (2) of the Ordinance and reduced their sentences: Being aggrieved by the said findings the Lahore Municipal Corporation has preferred the present revision petition, which are now before me for disposal:
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the State and have also perused the record. It cannot be doubted that all the respondents were properly charged for offences under section 161,1162 of the Punjab local Government Ordinance 1979, which charge sheets were in writing and road out and explained to all the respondents The said charge-sheets clearly contained the accusation that the respondents had kept or maintained cattle within the prohibited zone in violation of the law and that they weft thus liable for offences under section 161/162 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, The charge=sheets also referred to the and type of cattle and the places within the prohibited zone where they were round located. The fact that It was stated in the charge-sheets that the cattle were found within the prohibited zone, clearly showed that the respondents were being Proceeded for air offence under section 161 of the Ordinance in relation to Item No.3 of part I of Schedule III of the said Ordinance and not in relation to Item No:36, of part II of the said Schedule: After the signatures of the respondents were taken under the charge-sheets the respondents were asked the question whether they understood the charge, to which they replied in the affirmative: They were their asked the question whether they admitted of denied the charge, to which each of them pleaded guilty and admitted that they had made a mistake and that they may be pardoned. Each of them were again asked the question whether they wanted to produce any evidence in defence, to which they replied in the negative. All these questions and answers were recorded by the learned Magistrate in writing, at the foot of which proceedings, the signatures of the respondents were secured. In these circumstances, it cannot be denied that all the respondents were aware of the fact that they were being proceeded for violation of Item No. 3 of Part I of the III Schedule of the Ordinance. They were, therefore, properly convicted and sentenced by the Corporation Magistrate, Lahore. The reasoning of the learned Additional Sessions Judge converting the sentences from one under section 162 (1) of the Ordinance to that under section 162
(2) of the Ordinance is based ors legal semantics and not on a proper appreciation of the evidence, The fact that the respondents were told that they were keeping cattle within the prohibited zone was sufficient notice to them that their sentences fell under section 162(1) of the Ordinance, The reasoning of the appellate Judge that It was the duty of the Magistrate on principles of natural justice to apprise the respondents that by admitting guilt, they would be accepting the truth of the accusation is somewhat farfetched and not understood: 'the trial Magistrate explained the char a clearly to the respondents and recorded the questions and answer in the manner as required by law and nothing further had to be done by him: The observation of the appellate Judge that it was the duty of the trial Magistrate to have specified whether the offence fell under Part I or II or Schedule III of the Ordinance, is not without significance but since the accusation referred to the fact that the respondents had kept cattle within the prohibited zone, sufficient notice of the offence was available to the respondents Even otherwise, any error of omission in the charge, does not vitiate a trial The judgment of the learned appellant Court is based on a misreading of the record and legal By a forced construction of law and legal semantics, the learned Appellate Judge converted the sentences of the respondents from one under section 162 (1) of the Ordinance to that under section 162 (2) of the Ordinance and reduced the sentences The consolidated judgment qua the present respondents are, therefore, set aside.
4. The only matter that now remains Is that relating to sentence: The respondents are liable to be scented under section 162(l) of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979. In normal circumstances, they would be liable to be sentenced to undergo certain terms of imprisonment.
However, considering the fact, as submitted by the learned appellate Judge, that at the time of the commission of the offence, Lahore was declared to be a calamity-stricken area, I would maintain the sentence of flea imposed by the appellate Judge.
For the foregoing reason all these revision petitions are accepted, the sentences of the respondents ate converted from that under section 162 (2) of the Punjab local Government Ordinaries, 199, to that under section 162 (1) of the said Ordinance, but its view of the special circumstances of the case stated above, the sentences of fine as imposed by the appellate Judge, are maintained and not altered: