Summary: 1) The Lahore High Court held that if the accused refuses to sign the charge sheet, he cannot be convicted under section 180 PPC. [Reliance was place on The State VS Sardar Ahmed PLD 1967 Karachi 75] --- 2) The Additional Session Judge cannot directly convict the accused under section 195 of the Code if there is a breach of section 180, in the light of legal provisions under Sections 480 and 482, the ADJ has to first impose a fine of Rs.200, after that the court shall sent a report to the Magistrate under Section 482, only after following the due procedure can the court pass a conviction. 3) When an offender is punished under section 180 PPC, pursuant to section 480 of the Code then appeal against such order is provided under section 486 of the Code --- The appeal contested the conviction under section 180 PPC (Pakistan Penal Code) and a fifteen-day simple imprisonment, along with a fine of Rs.500/- each.The appellants argued that they were convicted because they sought time for their counsel when asked to sign a charge sheet related to a separate case. The defense contended that obtaining signatures on a charge sheet is not a legal requirement and cited precedent to support their case --- The judgment analyzed sections 480 and 482 of the Cr.P.C., highlighting that the learned Additional Sessions Judge lacked the authority to directly pass a sentence under section 180 PPC. The court concluded that the impugned order was a nullity in the eyes of the law.The contention that no appeal lies in petty offenses under section 413 of the Cr.P.C. was rejected, as the court pointed out that when an offender is punished under section 180 PPC pursuant to section 480 of the Code, an appeal is allowed under section 486 of the Code.Considering these circumstances, the court allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and sentence --- according to provisions of sections 154 and 200 of theCode the complainant is required to sign the statement, whereas, sections342 and 364 of the Code require obtaining the signatures of the accused butthere is no such requirement under sections 243 or 265-E of the Code.Obtaining signatures of the accused on the charge sheet is not the legalrequirement but it is in practice since long, therefore, obtaining signatureson the plea of an accused plainly conforms to his admission to charge orotherwise, therefore, it cannot be considered as an illegality; however, ifthe accused does not sign the charge sheet he cannot be convicted undersection 180 of PPC. Reliance in this respect is placed on the case cited supraas ?THE STATE versus SARDAR AHMED? (PLD 1967 Karachi 75) --- The contention of learned Prosecutors that in petty offences no appeallies as per mandate of section 413 of the Code is also repelled because when Criminal Appeal No.531/2023.4an offender is punished under section 180 PPC pursuant to section 480 ofthe Code then appeal against such order is provided under section 486 ofthe Code; therefore, this appeal is competent against the impugned orderpassed by learned Additional Sessions Judge.

Summary: Appeal against conviction, As per case reported as Haji Khawar Saleem v. The State [2000SCMR 1856], procedure under section 480, Cr.P.C. may be followed bythe court and in the judgment titled Muhammad Mushtaq v. The Statereported as PLD 2003 S.C. 19, the court can proceed under sections 228and 496, PPC or under section 480 or 482, Cr.P.C. In Agha Siraj KhanDurrani v. The State reported as 2000 P.Cr.L.J. 1329, the complaint canbe lodged by the concerned court or its superior court.11. In my humbly view, in this case the benefit of doubt goes infavour of the appellant as neither the witnesses were recorded norenough time was granted to the appellant to file reply to the show causenotice and put up his defence. The required procedure was not adopted.Therefore, I am inclined to grant the benefit of doubt to the appellant asthe exact action of interruption or insult was not explained as requiredunder section 481(2), Cr.P.C.12. In this view of the matter, this appeal is allowed, the impugnedjudgment dated 01.07.2013 passed by the learned trial court is set asideand the appellant is acquitted of the charge.