Find a Lawyer

Criminal Revision No. 164 of 1980, decided on 27th February, 1983.

‑‑ S. 14 ‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 243‑Plea of guilty‑Accused giving plea of guilty in writing as such provisions of S. 243, Cr. P. C. fully complied with‑Trial Court, held, giving facts of case in judgment and on basis of written plea of accused convicting him‑Trial Court, held, fully justified in convicting accused on basis of such plea of guilt.‑[1969 P Cr. L J 373 ; 1971 H Cr. L J 658 and 1971 P Cr. L J 1125 held not applicable].

1969 P Cr. L J 373 ; 1971 P Cr. L J 658 and 1971 P Cr. L J 1125 held not applicable.

Rashid A. Rizvi for Appellant.

Imam Bux for the State.

Date of hearing : 22nd February, 1980.

The applicant above‑named. being aggrieved by judgment, dated 15th October, 1980 of the learned V111th Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi. in Criminal Appeal No. 251%80, by which his said appeal was dismissed and the judgment, dated 31st August. 1980 passed by A. C. M. Shariat Court, Karachi, convicting the appellant under section 14 of the Islamic Law (Against Property) Ordinance, 1979 r/w section 243, Cr. P. C. and sentenced to 6 months' R. 1. was upheld, has preferred the above appeal, on the following facts and grounds :‑‑

Briefly the facts of the case are, that on 22nd August, 1980 at 3‑00 p.m the applicant was apprehended by the Police at Regal Bus Stop and recovered from his possession stolen property consisting of one Tape recorder Phillips make valuing Rs. 1,000. The applicant was arrested and a case was registered against him. After completion of the investigation the applicant was challaned in the Court.

The applicant was given copies of statements under section 161 Cr. P. C. (Exh. I JA) and he at the same time moved an application and pleaded guilty. Accordingly he was charge‑sheeted vide (Exh. 2) and he pleaded guilty voluntarily. In view of his own plea he was convicted under section 14 of the Islamic Law '(Against Property) Ordinance, 1979 read with section 243, Cr. P. C. and sentenced to undergo R. I. for six months only.

The learned trial Court taking into consideration the applicant's written plea of guilt convicted the applicant above‑named as hereinbefore mentioned and consequently appellant had filed Appeal No. 251/80 before VIIIth A. D. J., Karachi which was dismissed and consequently applicant had filed above petition on the grounds mentioned in the memo of petition.

The learned Advocate for the applicant in support of the above petition submitted, that the applicant's plea of guilt is in violation of the provisions of section 243, Cr. P. C. and as such conviction of the appli cant on such plea cannot be legally maintained. In support of this conten tion the learned Advocate for the applicant relied upon cases reported in 1969 P Cr. L J 373, 1971 P Cr. L J 658 and 1971 P Cr. L J 1125.

The learned Advocate for the State on the other hand submitted, that on account of the written plea of guilt given by the applicant, there was a full compliance with the provisions of section 243, Cr. P. C. and con sequently he fully supports the impugned judgments.

I have carefully considered the above submissions made by the learned Advocates before me and have gone through the R and P of the learned trial Court and through the judgment .of both learned lower Courts and cases cited by the learned Advocate for the applicant.

I find no force in .the contention of the learned Advocate for the applicant, as applicant gave his plea of guilt in writing and as such in my opinion provisions of section 243, Cr. P. C. were fully complied with and the learned trial Court was fully justified in convicting the applicant on the basis of such plea of guilt. I find that the learned trial Court in its judgment has given the facts of the case and on the basis of the written plea of the applicant convicted him. In view of this, cases, cited by the learned Advocate for the applicant are not applicable to facts of the present case.

Therefore, I dismiss the above petition. Applicant is on bail and as such his bail bond is cancelled and the learned trial Court is directed to issue non‑bailable warrant for the arrest of the applicant and on his arrest to remand him back to the judicial custody to serve out the remaining sentences awarded to him under the impugned judgment, dated 30^th August, 1980, of the Magistrate Islamic Law. I further direct that benefits of powers of section 362‑B, Cr. P. C. be given to the applicant in respect of his period of limitation as under‑trial perisoner, besides his substantive sentence.

M.A.K. Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.