Manzoor Ahmad; petitioner, was tried on the charge of selling sub--standard milk. He pleaded guilty. The trial Court convicted him under section 23-B of West Pakistan Pure Food Ordinance, 1960, and sentenced him to three months' R.I. And a fine of Rs.5,000 or in default thereof one months' S.I.
The appeal filed by him was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore on 18-12- 1989. On appeal learned Additional Sessions Judge maintained the conviction but reduced the sentence to one and a half months and a fine of Rs.2,500 in default thereof three months' S.I. No one has appeared for the parties. Since revision after having been admitted to regular hearing cannot be dismissed for non-prosecution, so I have examined the case myself. I find that the order of the conviction of the petitioner suffers from legal infirmities inasmuch as the trial Court did not ask him to show cause why he should not be convicted on the basis of his plea of guilty, which to my mind was a mandatory requirement under section 243 of the Cr.P.C. This being the position, the conviction of the petitioner cannot sustain.
2. For what has been stated above, the revision is accepted and the conviction and sentence of the petitioner is set aside. Now the question arises as to whether or not the case should be sent back for retrial, I feel that in the peculiar circumstances of the case that the petitioner was sent to jail thrice. He remained in jail as an undertrial prisoner and also as a convict, it would not be proper to direct retrial of the case. Disposed of accordingly.