1. ' This revision application under sections 435 and 439, Cr. P. C. Has been preferred by the applicant Ghulam Ali who was convicted by Magistrate First Class Court No, 2, West Karachi in a case under section 304-A, P. P. C. On 4th September, 1982. His appeal was also dismissed by an order, dated 26th October, 1983 by First Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi.
2. ' The facts of the present case briefly stated are that the applicant on 21st May, 1982 was driving mini bus No, 830-494 on Route No, 7, Karachi rashly and negligently and killed a boy namely Amer son of Muhammad Islam. The applicant went to Police Station at New Karachi and iodged report.
3. On 9th August, 1982 copies of Police statement and the other documents were supplied to him. The charge was framed against him on 4th September, 1982 which was read over to him. He pleaded guilty to the charge. On plea of his guilt he was convicted and sentenced under section 304-A, P. P.
4. C. To suffer R. I. For two years and to pay fine of Rs, 2,000 or in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. He has further been ordered to pay a sum of Rs, 5,000 to the heirs of the deceased as compensation as provided under section 554-A, Cr. P. C. Or in default of payment of compensation to suffer S. I. For five months more. He preferred appeal which was dismissed as stated above.
5. ' Mr. Hashmat Habib, the learned counsel has argued that conviction was awarded without taking any evidence and accused had denied that he pleaded guilty. He has also submitted that the provision of section 243, Cr. P. C. Has not been complied with. Therefore, the conviction is bad in law. Mr. Imam Bux learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the application and states that the trial Court has rightly accepted the plea of guilt and convicted the applicant.
6. ' I have examined the record and find that the Magistrate has read over the charge to the applicant/accused in which he was explained the entire prosecution case and the plea of guilt has been recorded in own words of the applicant. The applicant has also signed. Charge and the plea have been reproduced below : CHARGE WITH ONE HEAD (Sections 221, 222, 223 of the Code of Criminal Procedure)
7. CHARGE IN THE CASE OF St. versus Ghulam Ali (name and office of Magistrate) Allahdin Sanjrani hereby charge you (name of accused person)
8. Ghulam Ali son of Madadali follows :- ' That you, on or about the 21st day of May, 1982 at 6-15 p. m. While driving minibus No, 830-494 of route No, 4-7 rashly and negligently at main road opposite by Quarishi Hotel, New Karachi dashed against a boy Amer son of Muhammad Islam and ran over him under the wheel and caused his death and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 304-A of the Pakistan Penal Code, and within my cognizance.
9. ' And I hereby direct that you be tried by this said Court (or me) on the said charge. Magistrate's Court, District, seal The 4th September, 1982 (Sd.)
10. Magistrate 1st Class, Court No, 11 West City Court, Karachi.
11. ' The Charge iS read and explained to the accused who is questioned as follows :- Q. Do you plead guilty or have any defence to make ? A. I plead guilty.
12. (Sd.) (Sd.)
13. Ghulam Ali A. C. M. No, 2, Karachi."
14. According to the section 243, Cr, P. C. Magistrate is competent t record conviction on plea of guilt provided admission of accused I recorded in the words used by him. Mr. Hashmat Ali Habib has referred the case reported in 1981 P Cr. L J 515, which according to me is not applicable in the present case. In that case Magistrate instead recording admission of accused merely recorded his own words that accused pleaded guilty, and he convicted him. In the instant case plea of guilt has properly been recorded and the convictions have been rightly based. The learned Additional Sessions Judge was within his jurisdiction to dismiss the appeal.
15. ' In view of the facts and the circumstances that the applicant has rightly been convicted on basis of his plea of guilt this revision is dismissed and accused who is on bail be taken in the custody and should serve out the remaining sentences as ordered in the judgment.
16. ' He may be given benefit of section 382-B, Cr. P. C. Jail Authorities are directed to include at the time of computation of final sentence the period applicant remained in custody during trial and after also conviction.