' Shah Zaman petitioner was sent up on 26-4-1993 for the offence punishable under section 6(1)(a)
(c) and Rule 13-1(c) of West Pakistan Pure Food Ordinance, 1960 as adopted in Sindh in 1973 before the Special Magistrate, K.M.C. Karachi that on 13-9-1995 charge was framed against him and read it over to him. He pleaded guilty. So, he was convicted and sentenced to suffer R.I. For one year and to pay a fine of Rs,1,000, failing wherein to suffer further R.I. For two months. On appeal the learned Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Karacni (South), dismissing the appeal, maintained tne sentence awarded by the trial Court. Hence this revision.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is wrongly mentioned that the accused pleaded guilty. The petitioner had engaged two Advocates to contest the matter and for the last two years he was attending the dates of hearing. He had also argued that the accused is not a manufacturer; he simply buys from Market and sells it. He has further pointed out that salt only contains 20% Sodium Chloride and has not been declared hazardous to health. He has also argued that the applicant is absolutely illiterate and was asked by the staff of the Magistrate to sign a paper as the case is to proceed as there was no progress for the last 2-1/2 years. According to him, plea of guilt cannot be acted upon. He referred Muhammad Shah v. The State PLD 1966 (W.P.) Pesh.
184, Nurman Shah v. The State PLD 1967 Pesh. 191, Musthaq Ahmed and another v. The State PLD 1984 FSC 135, Bulo Khan and another v. The State PLD 1967 Kar.
608.
3. Miss Nasreen Zafar, Advocate for State supported the conviction on the ground that the petitioner is convicted on admission of his guilt. She submitted that the citations made by the learned Advocate for the petitioner are not applicable as the same pertains to confession and not the plea of guilt.
4. I have heard the learned Advocates for both the sides and applied my judicious mind to the circumstances of the case. The learned Magistrate exercising power under section 243, Cr.P.C.
Convicted the petitioner, on the sole admission to the plea of guilt, which is not in accordance with law. I find that when the charge was read over to the petitioner, he confessed the guilt and the learned Magistrate convicted and sentenced him forthwith. There is nothing on record to show that after his pleading guilty to the charge, he was given any opportunity to show why he should not be convicted. The relevant section 243, Cr.P.C. Reads as under:-- "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."
From the plain reading of the provisions of law reproduced above, it is very much obvious that on confession of the charge, the accused could not be convicted if he could show sufficient cause why he should not be convicted. Since neitner tne accused was told by the Magistrate that despite admission of the truth of accusation he could show-cause why he should not be convicted nor it has been stated in the order that he failed to show sufficient cause why he should not be convicted although he was given an opportunity, therefore, forthwith conviction of the petitioner on the basis of his confession cannot be sustained. Reliance is placed on the following cases:--
(1) Shera v. The State 1991 PCr.LJ 365,
(2) Nazar Khan v. The State 1991 PCr.LJ 1709,
(3) Manzoor Ahmed v. The State 1991 PCr.LJ 1888
(4) Mehmood Khan v. The State 1991 PCr.LJ 2158 ' Pursuant to the above discussion, the revision petition is accepted and the conviction and sentence of the petitioner are 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 twice, he remained in jail as a convict and faced the agony of the trial of his case for more than two years, it would not be proper to direct retrial of the case. Accordingly the appeal is allowed. His bail bond stands cancelled.