This petition; which was originally instituted as a criminal revision, was, on the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, converted into a petition under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. When it was pointed out by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State that the petitioner had already exhausted revisional remedy.
2. The petitioner was tried by the Illaqa Magistrate at Gujranwala for having been found in possession of a stolen mare and a tonga.
3. On the commencement of the trial he was charged accordingly and on his pleading guilty he was convicted under section 411, P.P.C. And sentenced to imprisonment for three years.
4. The revision filed by him against his conviction and sentence was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gujranwala, in limine. The learned counsel had to admit this fact when he was confronted by the learned State counsel on this point. Anyhow, on his request the second revision was converted into a petition under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that after his client had in reply to the charge admitted having stolen the mare and the tonga, the learned trial Magistrate should have given him opportunity to show cause that he was not liable to conviction and sentence but this procedure was not adopted by him. In support of his contention he has referred to the provisions of section 242, Cr.P.C. As also a ruling.
5. The fact of petitioner's having confessed his guilt in reply to the charge is not denied of his counsel, rather, he has conceded the factual position in that respect and has only tried to bank upon a mere technicality, showing cause against his conviction and sentence would obviously mean that he was entitled to lead evidence in his defence. Once he had confessed his guilt in unambiguous terms in reply to the charge, there could be little justification for him to insist for defence evidence in the contest of showing cause against his conviction. This could not be the intention of section 242, Cr.P.C. In view of his statement he had to be convicted and was rightly convicted by the learned trial Magistrate. However, the quantum of his sentence is a different matter, for the reduction of which, the petitioner or his counsel could canvass.
6. Whatever may be the background for the confessional statement made by the petitioner, the fact remains that he made clean breast of himself for which some credit should be given to him by way of concession in the matter of sentence. Thus, where his conviction under section 411, P.P.C. Is maintained, his sentence is reduced from three years' R.I. To 1-1/2 years' R.I., with the additional benefits of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Only to this extent the petition is ac6epted.
7. Since the petitioner is on bail, the learned District Magistrate, Gujranwala, to whom a copy of this judgment should be sent, shall cause his arrest and send him to the prison for serving out his remaining sentence.
SA./M-221/L