1. Criminal Revisions Nos. 10 and 27 of 1971 were reported by the learned Sessions Judge, Sargodha, under section 438, Cr. P. C. With the recommendation that the conviction of Muhammad Akram respondent in the first mentioned case under section 112 of the Motor Vehicles Ordinance, read with rule 4.43 of the Motor Vehicles Rules, with an award of a fine of Rs. 100 and the conviction of Muhammad' Sharif respondent in the second case recorded under section 112 of the Motor Vehicles Ordinance, read with rules 92 and 3 of the Motor Vehicles Rules with an award of a fine of Rs. 200 in a summary trial, be set aside for the reason that their admission had not been recorded as nearly as possible in their words as envisaged by section 243; Cr. P. C. Nor were reasons of conviction recorded as provided in section 263(h), Cr. P. C.
2. Having considered the position in the light of the relevant provisions of law, I am clearly of the view that the perfunctory manner in which summary cases are disposed of, as typified in the to references made by the learned Sessions Judge, Sargodha, is not in accordance with the legal requirements and in their keenness to dispose of the huge back log of cases the learned Magistrates, who are no doubt invariably overworked are often in pack deals of this kind at to ignore the salutary provisions contained in section 243, Cr. P. C. With the result that the stereotyped laconic orders are liable to result in miscarriage of justice. A strict observance of these provisions would certainly mean comparatively longer the and lesser disposal but the interests of justice cannot be allowed to be defeated for consideration of even genuinely motivated keenness for quick disposal. I am. Fortified in this by an authority of the Allababad High Court reported as Mukandi Lal v. State (AIR 1952 All. 212). Accordingly I accept these references and set aside the convictions of the respondents recorded by the learned Magistrate with no order of remand.