LIAQAT ALI Versus STATE

The petitioner was convicted under sections 279 and 336, P.P.C. and was sentenced to S.I. for two months and a fine of Rs.500 by the learned trial Court, vide judgment dated 5-4-1987 and his appeal, preferred against the said judgment, was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Narowal, vide judgment dated 12-4-1993, by holding that the conviction of the petitioner/appellant has taken place pursuant to his confessional statement, therefore, no appeal was competent against the same.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was sent up for trial under the charge of rash driving under section 279, P.P.C. and for endangering the life and personal safety of passengers, who were riding the- bus under section 336, P.P.C. During the trial, he is stated to have confessed his guilt and to have asked for forgiveness, whereupon the learned trial Court had convicted and sentenced him and his appeal preferred against the same was dismissed vide the impugned judgment dated 12-4-1993, as stated above.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner and the State were heard at length in respect of the contention that the petitioner's confession was neither recorded in accordance with the provisions of section 243, Cr.P.C., nor Was he given an opportunity to show cause as to why he should not be convicted and sentenced in accordance with law in view of the confession.

4. The perusal of the record of the case has duly established that the confession of the petitioner/accused had not been recorded in his own words, as was required under the provisions of section 243, Cr.P.C. The said section is as follows:---

"243. 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."

Therefore, it is hereby held that the conviction and sentence of the petitioner, being in violation of the provisions of the said section 243, Cr.P.C., is not sustainable in law. In this respect, reliance is placed on Gulzar Ahmad etc. v. Special Court, Multan 1991 P Cr. L J Note 70 at p. 49, wherein the conviction and sentence of the accused/petitioners was set aside as their confession had not been recorded as nearly, as possible in the words used by them and nor were they asked to show cause as to why they should not be convicted because of their confession.

5. Pursuant to the above discussion, the present criminal revision petition is hereby allowed and the impugned judgments are hereby set aside. Resultantly, the petitioner is acquitted of the offences charged; and as he has already suffered the agony of protracted trial of almost seven years and imprisonment of over one month since the disposal of his appeal, therefore, the Court declines to remand the case for retrial. The petitioner shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case.

N.E.Q./L-80/L Revision petition allowed.