PLJ 2004 Cr. C. (
(i) Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--
—S. 410-Appeal against convictioned and sentenced of imprisonment--Legality-Recovery of very small quantity of opium was effected from accused-Trial Court had given him very harsh sentence of five years for such petty offence-Accused has undergone some part of sentence awarded to him-Sentence of accused was reduced to sentence already undergone by him while fine was reduced to Rs. 500/- only. [P. 438] A
(ii) Administration of Justice-
—Duly of Judge while imposing sentence of imprisonment upon accused
explained and illustrated. [P. 438] B
Ch. Nisar Ahmad Dhillon, Advocate for Appellant.
PLJ 2004 Cr. C. (Lahore
JUDGMENT
Ali Nawaz Chowhan, J.--Muhammad Yaqoob alias Mansha son of Muhammad Idrees was convicted under Section 9-B of CNSA 1997 by the learned Sessions Judge/Judge Special Court CNSA, Hafizabad vide judgment dated 25.2.2002 in case FIR No. 399 dated 9.9.2001 registered at Police Station City Hafizabad and sentenced to five years R.I. with a fine of
. 3Q.OOO/- in default whereof he was to further undergo three months S.I. was given the benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 9.9.2001 at 6.15 p.m. on a spy
brmation Muhammad Yaqoob SI apprehended Muhammad Yaqoob alias
msha appellant at Qatal Garh Chowk and on his personal search opium
ighing 180 grams was recovered from his right pocket, out of which 10
ims were separated for chemical analysis. He lodged the complaint Ex. PA
the basis of which FIR Ex. PA/1 was recorded.
3. The prosecution examined as many as five witnesses to prove its
se. Mansab Ali PW-1 deposed about the transmission of the sealed parcel
the office of Chemical Examiner,
•mal FIR Ex, PA/1 on the basis of complaint Ex. PA. PW-3 Amjad Asif is
e witness of recovery. Arshad Ali HC PW-4 deposed about the safe custody
parcels said to contain chars in the malkhana. Muhammad Yaqoob /complainant/investigator reiterated the story of the FIR. The learned osecutor after tendering the report of Chemical Examiner Ex. PD .in idence, closed the case for prosecution whereafter the trial Court examined e accused under Section 342 Cr.P.C. and he denied all the charges and :overy of opium Ex. P-l.
4. The case of the appellant was that no recovery had been effected
im him whereas, the recovery under reference of 180 grams opium'was
inted. Amjad Asif (PW-3) stated that the accused was wanted in another
se and raids were being conducted .at his house for purposes of his arrest,
le likelihood that he may have been arrested in the other case against him
id what the appellant was stating had some truth about is there.
5. Any way we find that against the recovery of a very small
lantity of opium which is also consumed by our villagers the learned trial
3urt has given him a very harsh sentence of five years. He has already
idergone some part of it and, therefore, we reduce the sentence to one
idergone and reduce the fine to Rs. 500/- only.
6. This was not a case of such a gravity to incur wrath of law as
verely as was administered. The learned trial' Judge acted with impulse
id not with a judicial mind. Sentencing is not totally discretionary. It is
ructured by the case law, by the circumstances and also by the perception,
'hile the social and economic conditions and ground realities help us in
jpreciating criminology. A Judge is considered to be an expert in this area
id not an arbiter who acts capriciously and beyond proportions. Balances
•e to be kept even in the matter of crime and punishment. We do not
jprove hasty and impulsive decisions and except the subordinate judiciary
i take a breath after an order of conviction is made and then to ponder over
ie quantum of sentence with a cool head while keeping in view the
itionale of a crime and principles of sentencing.
7. We would like that a copy of this judgment is sent to the learned trial Judge for future guidance wherever the learned trial Judge may be posted and this be done through proper channels. Office to comply.
(A.A.) Order accordingly.
0 Comments