PLJ 2022 Cr.C. (Note) 146
Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 (XXV of 1997)--
----S. 9(c)--Quantum of sentence--Prayed for reduction in period of sentence--Conviction and sentence--Challenge to--Recovery of charas--Substantial period of sentence--As appellant is in custody since registration of case and therefore has already served out substantial period of sentence, hence, it would be in interest of justice if by reducing period of his sentence he is afforded opportunity to reform himself and become a useful member of society and in this regard--While maintaining conviction corded by trial Court u/S. 9(c) of Control of Narcotic substances Act, 1997 vide impugned judgment and taking into consideration substantial period of sentence already served out by appellant, period of sentence awarded to appellant is reduced from 05-years and 6-months rigorous imprisonment to period of sentence already served out by appellant including benefit of Section 382-B-Cr.P.C. also. However, sentence to extent of amount of fine imposed upon appellant by trial Court as well as sentence in default thereof will remain intact--Appeal dismissed with modification.
[Para 7 & 8] A & B
2021 SCMR 109, 2011 SCMR 965, 2007 SCMR 206 &
PLD 2017 SC 671.
Mr. Yousaf Naseem Chandio, Advocate for Appellant.
Mr. Ikraam Ullah Khan Niazi, Deputy Prosecutor General for State.
Date of hearing: 16.6.2022.
PLJ 2022 Cr.C. (Note) 146
[Lahore High Court, Lahore]
Present: Miss Aalia Neelum and Farooq Haider, JJ.
SHOAIB alias SHAIBI--Appellant
versus
STATE and another--Respondents
Crl. A. No. 14120 of 2019, heard on 16.6.2022.
Judgment
Farooq Haider, J.--This appeal has been filed by Shoaib alias Shaibi (appellant) against the judgment dated: 22.01.2019 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Chiniot/trial Court whereby in case arising out of F.I.R No. 430/2018 dated: 06.12.2018, registered under Section 9 (c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 at Police Station: Saddar, District: Chiniot, the learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant as under:
under Section 9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 to 05-years and months Rigorous Imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs. 100,000/- and in default thereof to further undergo S.I for 06-months. Benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C. was also extended to the appellant/convict.
2. Briefly, as per case of prosecution narrated in the First Information Report (F.I.R./Ex.PA/1), appellant was apprehended by the complainant and other police officials and on his search, two packets of charas weighing 1100-grams and 1000-grams, respectively (total weighing 2100-grams) and Rs. 420/- were recovered from his possession; out of the recovered charas, samples were separated and secured into scaled parcels while remaining case property was also sealed into two parcels.
After investigation, challan report was sent to Court against the appellant, charge was framed against him, to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial, prosecution produced its evidence and thereafter learned trial Court recorded statement of the appellant under Section: 342, Cr.P.C., wherein he refuted allegations levelled against him; he did not record his statement under Section 340(2), Cr.P.C. and also did not produce any evidence in his defence. Learned trial Court after hearing learned counsel for the parties, passed the impugned judgment wherein appellant was convicted and sentenced as mentioned above.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant, at the very outset, does not press this appeal to the extent of conviction of the appellant, however, requests for taking leniency in the shape of reduction of period of sentence awarded to the appellant (mentioned above) to the period already undergone.
4. Learned Deputy Prosecutor General submits that since appellant is the first time offender without having any criminal record of conviction in his credit to treat him as habitual, therefore, he has no objection on reduction of period of sentence awarded to the appellant to the period already undergone.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. Though learned counsel for the appellant has not challenged the conviction recorded by the learned trial Court against the appellant, however, for safe administration of justice, we have gone through the record and found that recovery of the narcotics (mentioned above) from the possession of appellant as well as its safe custody has been proved by the prosecution through confidence inspiring, trustworthy and reliable evidence. Furthermore, report of Punjab Forensic Science Agency, Lahore (Ex.PE) produced in the case has established that recovered narcotics was ‘charas’. Appellant neither himself appeared under Section 340(2), Cr.P.C. nor produced any evidence in his defence and even otherwise there is nothing available on record to create any dent in the case of prosecution. So, prosecution has proved its case against appellant, he has been rightly convicted and we see no ground/reason to interfere in said conviction.
7. Now coming to the quantum of sentence awarded to the appellant, learned counsel for the appellant has prayed for reduction in period of sentence learned Deputy Prosecutor General has also raised no objection if the same is reduced to the period already undergone. It has been noticed that the appellant is first offender as no report/record has been produced to show that the appellant was previously convicted in cases of like nature, the appellant has faced the agony of trial since his arrest; basic and prime purpose behind criminal justice system is to enable an offender to reform himself and to rehabilitate for rejoining the mainstream of prosperous life and once again to become a useful member of the society and not to wreak vengeance; since quantity of recovered contraband is not exceeding 10-KG, hence, there is no statutory limit of minimum quantum of sentence and by now it is well settled on the basis of valid reason, plea for reduction of sentence can be entertained and considered if substantial period of sentence has already been served out by the convict/appellant; in this regard, guidance has been sought from the case of “Mst. Sughran and another vs. The State” (2021 SCMR 109). As the appellant is in custody since registration of case i.e. 06.12.2018 and therefore has already served out substantial period of sentence, hence, it would be in the interest of justice if by reducing period of his sentence he is afforded opportunity to reform himself and become a useful member of the society and in this regard, case of “Abdul Rehman vs. The State” (2011 SCMR 965) can also be advantageously referred, wherein it has been held as under:
“After perusal of the record in light of the arguments advanced before us, it appears that there is no previous record of the conviction of the petitioner in any offence. The recovery effected in Charas as pointed out by the learned counsel is distinct from heroin, therefore, the case calls for a lenient view."
Guidance on the subject has also been sought from the case of “Niaz-ud-Din vs. The State” (2007 SCMR 206) and case of “State through the Deputy Director (Law), Regional Directorate, Anti-Narcotics Force vs. Mujahid Naseem Lodhi” (PLD 2017 SC 671).
8. In view of above and with concurrence of learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Deputy Prosecutor General, while maintaining conviction recorded by learned trial Court under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 vide impugned judgment and taking into consideration substantial period of sentence already served out by the appellant, the period of sentence awarded to the appellant is reduced from 05-years and 6-months rigorous imprisonment to the period of sentence already served out by the appellant including benefit of Section 382-B-Cr.P.C. also. However, sentence to the extent of amount of fine imposed upon appellant by the learned trial Court as well as sentence in default thereof will remain intact.
Nutshell is that instant appeal is dismissed with aforementioned modification.
(A.A.K.) Appeal dismissed
0 Comments