TALAAT QAYUM QURESHI, J.----Mr. Mustafa Kamal on 14-2-2000 inspected the store of District Health Officer, D.I. Khan and took into possession samples of drug known as Anglocillin Capsules of 500--mg (batch No. 4206) manufactured by Messrs Anglo Pak Pharma, Karachi for the purpose of test and analysis. Samples were sent to the Drug Testing Laboratory, Peshawar and the same were declared as "substandard" by the said Laboratory as well as by National Institute of Health, Islamabad. The said drug was supplied to Messrs Nayab Traders and Continental Enterprises, Karachi Market, Peshawar. A complaint under section 23(1) (a)(v)(f) and (i) of the Drugs Act, 1976 punishable under section 27(4) of the said Act was tiled against the petitioner and absconding co- accused Riaz Ali.
2. Formal charge against the appellant/petitioner was framed on 8-4-2002 and was read over to them to which they pleaded guilty and did not claim trial. They had placed themselves at the mercy of the Court with the request to take lenient view. Keeping in view the confessions made by the appellants, the learned Drug Court taking very lenient view convicted the appellants under section 23(1)(a)(v)(f) and (i), punished them under section 27(4) of the Drugs Act, 1976 and sentenced to imprisonment of three months' R.I. Each and a fine of Rs.50,000 in equal share or in default thereof to undergo further two months' R.I. Each. Being aggrieved of the said conviction order/judgment Muhammad Din has filed Criminal Appeal No. 105 of 2002 and Ibrahim Haji Muhammad has also filed Criminal Revision No. 36 of 2002. Through this single judgment/order we shall dispose of Criminal Appeal No. 105 of 2000 and Criminal Revision No. 36 of 2002 as both emanate from the same judgment/order.
3. Mr. Abdul Rauf Rohaila, Advocate the learned counsel representing Ibrahim Haji Muhammad in Criminal Revision No. 36 of 2002 and Mr. Muhammad Alam Khan, Advocate representing Muhammad Din in Criminal Appeal No. 105 of 2002 argued that the constitution of the Drug Court was not in accordance with law and while passing impugned order only the learned Chairman of the Drug Court was present. The other Member who has signed the impugned judgment/order was not present. Even otherwise the presence of one Chairman and two Members was necessary to constitute the quorum of the Drug Court.
4. It was also argued that the plea of confession of guilt of the appellant/petitioner was not reduced into writing in the words stated by them, therefore, the provisions of section 365(e), Cr.P.C.
Read with section 243, Cr.P.C. Were violated.
5. Mr. Muhammad Alam Khan further argued that the appellant namely Muhammad Din was supplied the drug in question by Messrs Anglo Pak Pharma, Karachi and its M.D. Ibrahim Haji Muhammad had confessed his guilt, therefore, he did not commit any offence and could not be convicted.
6. On the other hand Mr. Tariq Javed, Dy. A.-G. Representing the State argued that the appellant petitioner were involved in a heinous offence concerning the health of general public. They had confessed their guilt and therefore, they could not challenge the conviction order. Moreover, the punishment provided to them was very meagre and the same requires enhancement.
7. While answering the argument regarding the constitution of the Drug Court, the learned Dy. A.-G.
Argued that the Chairman and one Member of the Drug Court had signed the judgment/order and if the third member has not signed the same, it amounted to irregularity which was curable under section 537, Cr.P.C.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. It is admitted position that the appellant/petitioner had on 8-4-2002 confessed their guilt. The confession was recorded by the Drug Court and the charge was framed.
9. At the time when the charge was framed and the confession of the appellant/petitioner was recorded, the learned Chairman, Drug Court and two members were present. The impugned judgment/order was, however, written on the next day i.e. 9-4-2002. The same has been signed by Chairmam and one member of the Drug Court. The second member has not signed the impugned judgment/order. The question which requires determination is as to whether any prejudice has been caused to the appellant/petitioner if the second member has not signed the impugned judgment/order. The answer is in negative. If the second member of the Drug Court had not signed the judgment, the confession cannot be treated as illegal because non-signing of judgment by the second member can at the most be held to be irregularity which can be cured under section 537, Cr.P.C. This irregularity did not affect the merits of the case because the appellant/petitioner as mentioned above, had confessed their guilt on 8-4-2002 when the learned Chairman and two members of the Drug Court were present. The non-signing or the judgment/order by second member has, therefore, not prejudiced the case or appellant/petitioner.
10. So far as the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner that the confession made by the appellant/petitioner was not recorded in their words, the same also has no force at all. There are two provisions in Cr.P.C. Which govern the admission of truth of accusation. The first is section 243, Cr.P.C. Which deals with the trial by Magistrate, whereas the second is section 265(e) which deals with the situation when the trial is before the High Court and Court of Session. In both the sections it is mandatory that the plea of the accused if he pleads guilty be recorded as nearly possible in the words used by him. The perusal of the charge and confession made by the appellant/petitioner shows that they pleaded guilty in the following words:-- "We admit our guilt and do not claim trial. We throw ourselves at the mercy of the Court and request for taking lenient view."
12. The admission of the truth of accusation was made by the petitioner/appellant in clear words and the same was recorded in their own words, therefore, no violation of section 243 or section 265(e), Cr.P.C. Was done by the Court.
13. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant/petitioner was supplied the drug in question by Messrs Anglo-Pak Pharma, Karachi, therefore, he has committed no offence has no force at all for the reasons firstly, the appellant (Muhammad Din) had confessed his guilt and had thrown himself at the mercy of the Court with the request to take a lenient view, therefore he cannot turn around and take the plea that he was supplied with the drug under warranty by Messrs Anglo-Pak Pharma, Karachi. Secondly, having confessed the guilt appellant is barred under section 412 Cr.P.C. To challenge his conviction anti sentence by filing appeal. He could only challenge the extent or legality of the sentence which he has failed to challenge.
14. So far as the revision petition filed by Ibrahim Haji Muhammad is concerned, though the revisional jurisdiction has not been conferred upon this Court by Drugs Act, 1976 but still this Court could exercise its revisional powers under sections 435 and 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code and could interfere to the extent of examining the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order recorded or passes and as to regularity of proceedings pending before the Drug Court. In the case in hand we have not been able to find out any illegality in the impugned order/judgment.
15. In this case the appellant as well as petitioner had made clean breast confession thereby admitting that the drug in question was "substandard" and declined to produce any evidence.
There is no reason why after the complaint and appearance in Drug Court appellant/petitioner who remained unaware that they were making statements in Court in proceedings which could result in, their conviction and sentence on their own plea of guilty.
16. In a similar case reported as Muhammad Saeed v. The State (1985 SCM R 1405) where the accused had confessed his guilt and had declined to produce any evidence in defence, august Supreme Court of Pakistan refused to grant leave to appeal.
This being case of conviction and sentence on their own plea of guilt, no interference is called for.
Resultantly, the appeal as well as revision is dismissed.