1. ' Applicant Dadan was tried under section 379, P.P.C. On the charge that on 27-3-1985, at mid-night complainant Shah Ali woke up on the noise and saw accused Hayato. Adoo, Nadir, Gul Muhammad and present applicant Dadan alias Dadoo standing in the courtyard trying to untie the cattle with the purpose of committing theft. Complainant raised cries whereupon applicant and other accused ran away without committing the theft of the cattle.
2. ' Police arrested all the accused excepting the applicant who was arrested later on and was sent up by way of supplementary challan on 30-8-1987. However, the other accused were tried and acquitted by the trial Court before the arrest of the applicant.
3. ' Formal charge against the applicant was framed on 3-11-1987 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. ' After the charge, the process was issued but none of the P. Ws. Appeared before the trail Court.
5. However, the applicant in order to get rid of the protracted trial pleaded guilty and submitted an application to that effect, admitted the commission of the offence and prayed for mercy. The trial Court accepting the plea of guilt, convicted the applicant thereon holding that the case of the prosecution against the applicant was proved. The applicant was convicted and sentenced to suffer R.I. For 1-1/2 years and a fine of Rs,500 or in default to suffer R.I. For 15 days more. He was however, given the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C., as he remained in jail as undertrial prisoner from 17-11-1992 to 29-7-1994.
6. ' Applicant's counsel submits that the impugned judgment is not sustainable in law and is violative of the mandatory provisions of section 243, Cr.P.C. As no show-cause notice was given to the accused as to why the applicant should not be convicted. He argues that so-called plea of guilt is neither voluntary nor the consequences of such plea were ever explained to the applicant. The admission of guilt by the applicant if any in this case was because of reason that the applicant suffered a lot and faced the trial without any progress for years together and in order to get rid of the proceedings he pleaded guilty. Applicant's counsel in these circumstances requested that he will be satisfied if the conviction and sentence is set aside and the case is remanded back for re- trial in accordance with law. He places reliance on 1991 PCr.LJ 1761.
7. ' Mr. Chohan learned State Counsel agrees to the contention raised by applicant's counsel and raises no objection to the remand of the case for re-trial.
8. ' I have carefully considered the legal objection raised by the counsel for the applicant carefully. I feel pursuaded to agree with the contentions of the applicant's counsel.
9. ' The relevant provision of section 243, Cr.P.C. Is reproduced as under:-- "243. Conviction on admission of truth of accusation.--If the accused admits that he has committed the offence with which he is charged his 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."
10. ' The plain reading of this section will show that before awarding sentence the trial Court was obliged to ask the applicant if he pleaded guilty and admitted the commission of offence, his statement would be recorded as early as possible in the words used by him and if he shows no sufficient cause as to why he should not be convicted, the Magistrate may convict him accordingly.
11. There appears to be wisdom behind this provision of law. The purpose and object was to avoid involuntary admission, the accused persons oftenly make admission of the guilt with the promise or inducement that they will either be sentenced with leniency or will be acquitted on the plea of mercy. Here in this case also it is apparent that applicant confessed his guilt and admitted the commission of offence because for sufficient time none of the witnesses appeared and it was because of protracted trial that he was constrained to admit the charge with the prayer to take mercy upon him as he felt that there is no other alternate left for him excepting this. Since in the instant case the mandatory requirement of section 243, Cr.P.C. Was not complied with, so there is no exception but to set aside the conviction and sentence of the applicant and the case is sent back to the trial Court for fresh trial in accordance with law.