RASHID AZIZ KHAN, J.--The facts leading to the filing of this Revision are that petitioner Abdul Rashid was tried by Municipal Magistrate, Faisalabad for an offence under sections 23(i)(A)of Pure Food Ordinance. Since the petitioner pleaded guiIty to the charge, therefore, the learned trial Court proceeded to convict him to S.I. For one year and a fine of Rs.530/-, or in defauIt further imprisonment for three months S.I. The petitioner appealed against his conviction and sentence but the same was dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Faisalabad vide his judgment dated 20.5.1979.
However, the sentence of imprisonment was reduced from one year to six months.
2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was an illiterate person, therefore, did not know the legal implications of confession. Submits that even if the petitioner had made a confession, the Court should have recorded evidence and then should have given a finding if the prosecution had been able to prove its case or not.Contends that the Food Inspector did not comply with Rule 46, therefore, the petitioner was prejudiced. Lastly submits that the occurrence took place in 1978 and the petitioner has already undergone about 15 days of his sentence, therefore, it may not be in the interest of justice to send him back behind the bars for serving the remaining part of his sentence. The contentions have been Opposed by learned counsel for the State.
3. I have heard the learned counsel and perused the record. The trial Court had convicted the petitioner on his confessional statement. The petitioner had pleaded guiIty to the charge, therefore, the trial Court did not proceed to record any evidence and recorded the conviction while acting under section 243 Cr.P.C. The law empowers a Magistrate to rely upon the admission of an accused and convict him.
As far as the other contention that Rule 46 of the Pure Food Rules had not been complied with is concerned, is also without force. The contention of the learned counsel was that I6 grams of 'Haldi' should have been taken for purposes of chemical analysis but in the present case only 6 grams was taken.There could have been some force in the contention of the learned counsel if the petitioner had not admitted his guiIt. When the petitioner admitted his guiIt, there could not be any question of possible prejudice which might have been caused to him in the non-compliance of the said rule.As far as the last contention is concerned, it has some force. The occurrence took place in 1978. The petitioner was sentenced to six months simple imprisonment out of which he has undergone about 15 days. In these circumstances, while disposing of the Revision Petition, I reduce the sentence of imprisonment which the petitioner has already undergone. The sentence of fine is, however, maintained. Revision petition is disposed of in the terms stated above.