Farzand Ali, holder of bus conductor licence No. 25, was tried under rule 99-A of the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1969 read with section 112 of the Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965. In a summary trial, Khawaja Riaz Ahmad, Special Magistrate, Punjab Road Transport Board, Lahore, convicted him thereunder and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 50, on 13th March, 1982. The learned Magistrate by the same order cancelled his conductor licence No. 25 under Rule 103(11) of the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1969.
The appeal of Farzand Ali was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, on 21st March,. 1982. Farzand Ali has now challenged his conviction and sentence by this revision.
2. It is alleged that on 9th February, 1982 at 14.30 hours bus No. LEX/9534 of Government Transport Service was checked at Kahna when a passenger travelling from Amar Sidhu to Kahna was found without ticket although the fare of Re. 1 had been charged by the conductor. Petitioner confessed his guilt before the Special Magistrate, Punjab Road Transport Board, who tried petitioner summarily under section 260, Cr. P. C. Petitioner was convicted and sentenced as aforementioned.
3. On the same day and time and in the same bus five other passengers were also checked and were found travelling without tickets from various places for which petitioner was sentenced by the same Special Magistrate on 13th March, 1982 and his appeals were dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, on 21st March, 1982 against which petitioner has separately filed Criminal Revisions Nos. 172 to 176 of 1982. Since common point of law and facts is involved all these revisions shall also be disposed by this judgment.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that order of the learned Special Magistrate was appealable and the learned Additional Sessions Judge was wrong in dismissing petitioner's appeal as incompetent. On merits learned counsel has urged that even in summary trial compliance of the provisions contained in section 263/264, Cr. P. C. Was mandatory and failure in that behalf has rendered judgment of the learned Special Magistrate a nullity. It has also been argued that requirement of section 116 of the Motor Vehicles Ordinance has not been complied with in summary disposal of the case and that provisions contained in section 243, Cr. P. C. Which were required to be followed, have not been complied with and the conviction of the petitioner on his admission of truth of accusation is bad in law.
5. The arguments of learned counsel on the first point is that the learned Special Magistrate cancelled licence of the petitioner in his judicial capacity as a Magistrate functioning under the Criminal Procedure Code and cancellation of licence of petitioner is part of sentence passed by the learned Special Magistrate. He has referred to dictionary meaning of the word sentence to contend that it means that pronounced by a Court or a Judge or a penalty imposed on a guilty person by a Magistrate in a criminal trial. Learned counsel has contended that in cancelling petitioner's licence the learned Special Magistrate did not act on the exe--cutive side because he was not an employee of the Road Transport Depart--ment nor was he an authority for grant refusal or cancellation of the licence of petitioner under the Motor Vehicles Ordinance or the Rules framed there--under. Learned counsel has also submitted that consequence .Of cancella--tion of service is that petitioner has lost his job without any show cause notice in violation of natural principles of justice. He has submitted that although licence is a privilege but after it is granted. It becomes a right. Reliance has been placed on Garonand Singh v. Emperor ((1934) 35 Cr. L J 116) in which the order convicting a taxi driver and cancelling his driving licence was held to be appealable. Learned counsel appearing for the Punjab Road Transport Board and the learned Assistant Advocate-General have argued that the judgment of the learned Special Magistrate .
Was not appealable and was revisable only. It has been contended that cancellation of petitioner's licence was not a part of the punishment as defined in section 53, P. P. C. Adopted by Criminal Procedure Code which alone is to be looked into. It was separable and was not punishable by a criminal Court which is either corporal or involves fiscal liability. It was submitted that the licence was cancelled in consequence of conviction and sentence. The finding of a learned Single Judge in Re: K. v. Subramania Ayyar (AIR 1945 Mad. 27) was relied upon in which order of the learned Sessions Judge dismissing the appeal as not competent was upheld.
6. Petitioner was tried in a summary way and was convicted for contravention of Rule 99-A of the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1969. He was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50 which being less than Rs. 200 appeal against the order of conviction was barred by section 414, Cr. P. C. The argument addressed is that since the conductor's licence of petitioner was cancelled in addition to the fine the order of the Special Magistrate was appealable under section 408, Cr. P. C. All offences under any other law can be tried under section 5(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Any Magistrate of the first Class specially empowered can try an offence in a summary way, if he thinks fit, under section 260, Cr. P.
C. The punishment to which offenders are liable are specified in section 53 of the Pakistan Penal Code which punishments have been adopted by Code of Criminal Procedure and include fine. A judgment in every criminal Court has to specify the offence of which an accused is convicted and the punishment to which he is sentenced. Therefore, a Magistrate specially empowered under the Code of Criminal Procedure can award only such punishments which are specified in the Code and are appealable. The punishment of cancellation of conductor's licence does not form part of the punishment provided in the Pakistan Penal Code and adopted by Criminal Procedure Code and cannot give right of appeal to the convict which otherwise is barred by section 414, Cr. P. C. The learned Additional Sessions Judge was right in dismissing appeal of the petitioner as not competent. However, the order of the Special Magistrate cancelling the conductor's licence was revisable under section 18(6) of the Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965, to which attention of the learned Additional Sessions Judge appears to have not been drawn. The learned Additional e Sessions Judge, Lahore may now consider the grievance of the petitioner relating to cancellation of his conductor licence and decide it treating the appeal as a revision.
7. For the foregoing reasons the order dated 21st March, 1982 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore is set aside and the case is remanded for fresh decision according to law.