IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI

Cr. Appeal No. 375 of 2017

Rehmat Ali.………………………………………...…………………..Appellant

Versus

The State and another.……………….…………..……………….Respondent

Date of Hearing : 23.10.2017

Mr. Qadir Hussain Khan, advocate for the appellant

Mr. Muntazir Mehdi, DPG

J U D G M E N T

.-.-.-.-.-.

FAHIM AHMED SIDDIQUI, J: Through instant criminal appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment dated 01.08.2016 passed by learned VIII-Additional Sessions Judge Karachi West in Session Case No. 549/2017, FIR No.85/2017, registered under Section 3/4, 14 of Foreigner Act, 1946, at PS Peerabad.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that although it is mentioned in the impugned judgment that the appellant has admitted his guilt that he belongs to Afghanistan but fact is that he is a Pakistani by birth and relevant documents i.e., Birth Certificate etc., are available. He further submits that entire family of the appellant is residing in Karachi and he was born in Pakistan. Charge was framed on 13.04.2017 but an application for plead guilty was filed on 01.08.2017 which bears thumb impression of the appellant.

3. On the other hand, learned DPG opposed instant appeal while submitting that the appellant pleaded guilty as such instant appeal is not competent.

4. I have heard the arguments advanced and gone through the record available. From the record, it appears that the appellant speaks Urdu, Pushto and Hindko frequently. Hindko is not a native language of Afghanistan and same is spoken in some parts of KPK which is bordering to Punjab. It indicates from impugned judgment that the appellant has pleaded his guilt. I have gone through the record, which reveals that charge was framed on 13.04.2017 while application for plead guilty was filed by the appellant on 01.08.2017. In my humble view, after framing of charge, disposal on the basis of such plea does not fulfill the requirement of Sections 242 and 243 Cr.P.C. Besides application for plead guilty bears thumb impression of the appellant and as per record, he is an illiterate person. In such a situation, the appellant must have been misled and his plea is not only contrary to law but also involuntary. It appears from the record that as soon as, such application was filed, the prosecution closed the side and on the same date, statement of appellant was recorded under Section 342 Cr.P.C., and on very day, impugned judgment was pronounced.

5. I am of the view that entire practice of learned trial Court amounts to ‘justice hurried and justice buried’. As such impugned judgment is set aside and the case is remanded back to learned trial Court for de novo trial.

J U D G E