Nawab Ali alias Nawabi was convicted by Chaudhry Nazir Ahmad, Section 30 Magistrate, Qasur, on 6th December 1968, under section 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment. He went up in appal, which was dismissed by Mr. Bashir Ahmad, Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, on 29th May 1971. Hence this revision petition by him.
2. Briefly, the case is that, while on patrol duty on 10th April 1968, Sub-Inspector Zahoor-ud-Din of Kanganpur Police Station, spotted a black car parked by the side of the road. Then he went towards that side, along with his companions. Muhammad Ashiq, the co-accused of the petitioner, who was sitting in it came out and started running. He was chased and caught. Three other companions of the petitioner were sitting inside a field. They were not located, as they had hidden themselves. In the presence of Muhammad Ashiq, the patrol party recovered 30 seers of copper wire belonging to the Telephone Department from the car, which was taken into possession. On interrogation, Muhammad Ashiq named the petitioner, as his companion. He was arrested on 20th May 1968. He took the police to the workshop of one Muhammad Salim, situated on Abbot Road, Lahore, and pointed out a box lying therein. The lock was broken and copper wire weighing one maund was recovered therefrom.
3. Six witnesses were examined by the prosecution. There--after, the statement of the petitioner was recorded under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He admitted his guilt. He admitted that he had led to the recovery of the copper wire from the workshop of Muhammad Saleem. He con--fessed his guilt and thus on the basis of his plea, he was convicted.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the conviction of the petitioner is illegal inasmuch as, statement of the petitioner was not recorded keeping in mind the provisions of section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The provisions of section 164, Cr. P. C. Do not have application to a statement made by an accused person under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as the earlier statement is recorded during the course of investigation under Chapter XIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure or even thereafter, but in any case, before the commencement of the inquiry or trial.
5. Section 342, Cr. P. C. Runs thus: "For the purpose of enabling the accused to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him, the Court may, at any stage of any inquiry or trial without previously warning the accused, put such questions to him as the Court considers necessary, and shall, for the purpose aforesaid, question him, generally on the case after the witnesses for the prosecution have been examined and before he is called on for his defence.
(2) The accused shall not render himself liable to punish--ment by refusing to answer such questions or by giving false answers to them; but Court and the jury (if any) may draw such inference from such refusal or answers as it thinks just.
(3) The answers given by the accused may be taken into consideration in such inquiry or trial, and put in evidence for or against him in any other inquiry into, or trial for other offence which such answers may tend to show he has committed.
(4) No oath shall be administered to the accused."
It is evident from a reading of section 342, Cr. P. C. That any answer given by an accused person may be taken into con--sideration against him in the proceedings during which the statement is recorded. It can be used in the inquiry or trial 8 against him. So the fact that the aforesaid statement was taken into consideration in convicting the petitioner, would not amount to commission of an Illegality.
6. Section 412 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to the effect that no appeal is competent in a case where the accused person has pleaded guilty and is convicted either by a high Court or Court of Sessions or by any Magistrate of the First Class on his plea except as to the extent or legality of the sentence. There can be no appeal against the conviction. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to urge that the sentence awarded to the petitioner is illegal or it is, in any manner, severe. Under the circumstances, the petitioner appeal to the learned Sessions Judge, therefore, was rightly rejected. There is no force in the revision petition, which is hereby dismissed in limine.