1. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Muhammad Azam Shadir was convicted on his plea of guilty by First Class Magistrate, Karachi under section 3/7 Passport Rules 1955 read with section 3/5 Passport Act, 1939 and section 14 Foreigners Act, 194-- and sentenced to undergo S.I. For two days and fine of Rs.100 or in default S.I. For one day. Unsatisfied with his conviction he went in appeal under section 412, Cr. P.C. Which was dismissed by the learned VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi vide her order, dated 10-9-1983. As the said appeal was dismissed mainly on ground of non-maintainability, the said accused filed revision application but the same was also dismissed by Sessions Judge, Karachi by his order, dated 8-10-1983. It is the latter order and the order of accused's conviction which are sought to be quashed by the present application filed under section 561-A, Cr.P.C.
2. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the relevant record.
3. It was first contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the passport rules under which the accused was convicted were repealed and were not in force at the time of his conviction. This argument seems to overlook the fact that the accused's conviction was, based mainly under section 3/5 Passport Act, 1939 and section 14 Foreigners Act, 1946. Therefore, even if the Passport Rules are held to be non-existent at the time of the accused's conviction, his conviction under other provisions remained un-affected.
4. The learned Sessions Judge has rightly pointed out in the impugned judgment that section 3 of the Foreigners Act gives powers to the Federal Government to make provisions for prohibiting, regulating and restricting the entry into Pakistan or departure therefrom, of the foreigners and their continued presence in the country. It is further stated by him that in pursuance of the said powers, the Federal Government has issued Foreigners Order 1951. Article 3 of the said Order provides that no foreigners shall enter Pakistan without leave of the civil authority having jurisdiction at such place or port and that the violation thereof will be punishable under section 14 of the aforesaid Act.
5. The allegations against the petitioner are that he entered Pakistan without travel documents and thereby without leave from the civil authority, therefore, his conviction under section 14 was quite in order.
6. The next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that as provided in section 241-A., Cr.P.C. Copies of police papers were not supplied to him within the period specified in the said section. Whether copies of the said documents were or were not supplied to the petitioner within the specified period is a question of fact which cannot be gone into in application of this kind.
7. Moreover, this argument was also raised before the learned Sessions Judge who has given convincing reasons, in disposing the same.
8. The last argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner was that his plea of guilty was not recorded strictly in accordance with requirements of section 243, Cr.P.C. This section requires that the accused's admission of guilt shall be recorded as nearly as possible in the words used by him.
9. The relevant portion of the judgment of the First Class Magistrate Karachi convicting the accused reads as under:-- "Charge framed is read over and explained to the accused to which he pleaded guilty."
10. The learned counsel has not been able to show that the petitioner made admission in particular words and the Court has not recorded his admission in such words. In absence of the language used by the petitioner in making the admission, it is difficult to hold that mandatory provisions of section 243 were not complied with. It appears that when the charge was read over and explained to the accused, all that he stated in reply was that he pleaded guilty to the charge. Thus, the accused's conviction does not suffer from any illegality on this account.