Ahmad Yar and Abdul Aziz petitioners and five others were tried for an offence under section 148/149, P.P.C. By Magistrate 1st Class, Kot Addu. They denied the charge and claimed to be tried. On the conclusion of the trial the learned Magistrate convicted them under section 148/149, P.P.C. And sentenced them to six months' R.I. Each. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the petitioners and their co- convicts filed appeal which was entrusted to Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffargarh who while acquitting them of the charges, convicted the petitioners under section 324, P.P.C. Hence this revision.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since the petitioners were not charged under section 324, P.P.C., so they could not have been convicted under this section. The learned counsel for the State is not in a position to controvert him.
3. I have considered the matter. I feel persuaded to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioners. I find that the petitioners were charged under section 148/149, P.P.C. The learned Additional Sessions Judge set aside their conviction under these sections and instead convicted them under section 324, P.P.C. It is really sad that the learned Additional Sessions Judge did not know that the petitioners who were charged with minor offence under section 148/149, P.P.C. Could not have been convicted for major offence under section 324, P.P.C. Without charge under this section. Furthermore, offence under section 324, P.P.C. Is not cognate to offence under section 148/149, P.P.C. There can be no two opinions that the conviction of the petitioners by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is bad in law.
4. For what has been said above, the revision is accepted and the conviction and sentence of the petitioners awarded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is set aside and they are acquitted.