' Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore has made a recommendation for setting aside the conviction of !Muhammad Boota petitioner for an offence under section 226-A/112 of the Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965 on two grounds firstly that unless it is proved that Transister-Radio was being played when the passengers were seated in the bus, the petitioner could not be convicted for the said offence and secondly that in any case the Transister-Radio could not be contiscted.
' In the grounds of revision submitted .Before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge the plea ttaken by- the petitioner was not that there was no passenger seated in the bus. On the other hand, his assertion was that the Transister was out of order and that in the alternative playing of Transistor- Radio in a bus by itself is not an offence. -No plea was taken that at the time of raid the passengers were not seated in the bus. The facts and circumstances noted in tue challan report as also the copy of the order passed by the learned Magistrate and disclose during the hearing of the arguments in this petition by Allah Data who claims to be partner/owner of the bus show that the petitioner was caught red-handed at the spot. The transistor was handed over by the A. S. t. To the Tragic Magistrate there and then. - In an application submitted by the Manager of the owner subsequent to the conviction, it is mentioned that the "transistor-Radio was on. It is also mentioned therein that in the bus itself the Transistor-Radio was on when it was taken into possession. An undertaking was given that in future such a mistake would not be committed. {{URDU TEXT}} The learned Magistrate kept only a summary of the record of the proceedings. The petitioner confessed his guilt. Obviously no proceedings would have been taken against him if, as now stated by the owner, the bus would have been parked in General Bus Stand or that the Transistor Radio would have been out of order or that it was not being played when there were passengers in the bus. The assertions made in the grounds of revision are in conflict with what was urged during the arguments before the learned Additional Sessions Judge. I, therefore, hold that there is no factual basis to support the first point of the reference made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that there was no passenger in the bus when the petitioner had put on the Transistor Radio.
2. With regard to the second point of the reference, learned counsel for the State has argued that section 517 of Cr. P. C. Is a general provision. In absence of any such law in this behalf contained in the Motor Vehicle Ordinance the general provisions would apply to the trial of the petitioner. The position taken by the learned counsel for the State has not been controverted from the other side.
Prima facie the contention of the learned conusel is plausible. The confiscation of the Transister- Radio is not illegal.
3. There is no force in the second point either this reference is therefore, rejected. .