1. Applicant Edward Louis son of Anthoni Louis has filed this application against the order passed in appeal by the learned Sessions Judge, Karachi (South) while hearing the same against the judgment passed by the A.C.M. XIII, South Karachi, dated 18-6-1988.
2. Briefly the facts giving rise to the application are that the applicant was challaned by the Kharadar Police to face trial under section 13-E, Arms Ordinance, 1965 consequent to an F.I.R. No. 338/88 registered on 13-6-1988 whereby S.I. Muhammad Sadiq of Police Station Kharadar arrested the applicant on the same day under section 554, Cr.P.C. From a Bazar in Kharadar Cloth Market, Karachi and during the interrogation the applicant is alleged to have disclosed that he had an unlicenced revolver kept in a but at Agha Khan Road which was searched by the A.S.I. In presence of the Mashirs and the weapon which was a revolver of .32 bore alongwith three live bullets was secured from the hut. Consequently an F.I.R. Was lodged and on completion of the investigation the applicant was challaned in the Court. The challan was put up on 16-6-1988. On 18-6-1988 as per record, a formal charge was framed under section 13-E, Arms Ordinance as Exh.3 and earlier on the same date there appeared an application purported to have been made by the applicant containing the amdission of guilt to the following effect:- "It is requested that case against me is being presented today before the 1 Court. I admit the guilt and the decision may be given today and I do not want to avail of even day's time for which I shall be thankful."
3. The above application was treated as the plea of guilt and the conviction was recorded by the A.C.M. XIII South Karachi and the applicant was sentenced to undergo R.I. For six months. Against the impugned judgment of the A.C.M dated 18-6-1988 an appeal was preferred in the Court of Sessions Judge, South Karachi, who maintained the conviction which has been challenged in the present revision application on 9-7-1988.
4. Mr. Badar Munir, learned counsel appearing for the applicant has contended that the plea of guilt is in violation of section 243, Cr.P.C. And as such the conviction of the applicant on tree basis of such plea cannot be legally maintained.
5. Mr. Akmal Wasim, learned counsel for the State has stated that the applicant had given a statement in writing and as such there was full compliance of the provision of section 243, Cr.P.C.
6. I have carefully considered the above submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the R&P of the case and I find that there is nothing in the charge as no question with regard to the application containing plea of guilt Exh.2 has been asked nor the applicant has stated before the Court that he has made any such application: The learned counsel for the applicant has vehemently contended that the applicant had not made the application Exh.2 and according to him the said application was submitted by the police and since no evidence whatsoever was produced by the prosecution, it cannot be treated as `plea of guilt' by the accused. The requirement of law under section 243, Cr.P.C. Is as under:- "If the accused admits that he had committed the offence with which he was charged, then admission shall be recorded as nearly as possible in the words used by him; and if he shows no sufficient cause why he should not be convicted, the Magistrate may convict him accordingly."
7. After going through the statement of plea of guilt I am of the view that the applicant having not admitted the making of application Exh.2 and in absence of any other evidence, the wordings mentioned in the application do not fulfil the requirement of the provision of law. The plea of guilt relied upon reads as under:- "I plead guilty. I have produced the revolver from the room and had no intention except that I would sell it to somebody and thus earn profit."
8. Mr. Akmal Wasim did not resist the submission made by the applicant's counsel that in view of this legal infirmity the order of the trial Court and the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in appeal be set aside and the case be remanded for retrial.
9. With these observations Criminal Revision No. 30 of 1988 is disposed of.
10. N.H.Q./E-28/K