MEHMOOD KHAN vs THE STATE-

MUHAMMAD MUNIR KHAN, J.--- This Criminal Appeal No.64-J of 1990 arises from the judgment of Presiding Officer, Special Court (Suppression of Terrorist Activities) Sargodha, whereby he, on 22-5- 1990 convicted Mehmood khan, appellant, under section 4-B of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and sentenced him to 7 years' R.I.

2. The charge against the appellant was of keeping 300 detonators, the explosive substance, in his possession on 3-10-1987, which were recovered from him.

3. The trial Court framed a charge under section 4-B of the Explosive Substance Act, 1908, to which he pleaded guilty. He also stated that he was labourer of stone crushing machine and was in possession of 300 detonators as they were used in blasting the stones; and he used to work as a labourer to earn his livelihood for his children. On this admission, the trial Court convicted and sentenced him forthwith. The learned counsel for the appellant relied on the section 243, Cr.P.C. To contend that the forthwith conviction of the appellant without giving him further notice to show cause as to why he should not be convicted on the basis of his admission, was quite illegal.

Learned counsel for the State is not in a position to controvert him.

4. We have considered the legal objection raised by the learned counsel for the appellant carefully.

We feel persuaded to agree with him. Section 243, Cr.P.C. Maybe reproduced advantageously:-- Section 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.

The plain reading of this section will show that before awarding sentence, the trial Court was obliged to ask the appellant after he had pleaded guilty or bad made admission of the charge, to show as to why he should not be convicted and sentenced. There appears to be wisdom behind this provision of law. The purposes of this provision was/is to avoid involuntary admission. The accused persons are often induced to make admission of the guilt and plead guilty with the promise or the hope that nominal sentence of fine or imprisonment will be awarded to them. Some of the accused persons do not know the implication of the plea of guilty. Since in the instance case, the mandatory requirement of further notice to the accused to show cause as to why he be not convicted on the basis of the admission, was not complied with, so there is no exception but to set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant.

5. Pursuant to the above discussion, the appeal is accepted. The conviction and sentence of the appellant-accused is set aside and the case is sent back to the trial Court for fresh trial in accordance with law.