PLJ 2024 Cr.C. (Note) 68
[Lahore High Court, Lahore]
Present: Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar and Ali Zia Bajwa, JJ.
WASIF ULLAH KHAN--Appellant
versus
STATE and another--Respondents
Crl. A. No. 250446 of 2018, decided on 4.5.2023.
Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 (XXV of 1997)--
----S. 9(c)--Conviction and sentence--Challenge to--Quantum of sentence--Reduction in sentence--Prosecution version qua recovery of contraband charas weighing 1340-grams was substantiated through statements of Inspector/complainant (PW-5) and 184/C (PW-6)--In their statements, prosecution witnesses gave detailed pen-picture of recovery of charas from appellant and they remained consistent on salient aspects of prosecution version--The chain of custody of narcotic substance remained unbroken and report of Punjab Forensic Science Agency is also positive--Hence, trial Court was justified in recording conviction against appellant under Section 9(c) of CNSA, 1997--The report does not reflect that appellant was involved in any untoward activity during his confinement in jail, recorded in his history ticket as envisaged in Rule 66 of Pakistan Prisons Rules, 1978, meaning thereby that his conduct in jail remained satisfactory--While examining record we have also noticed that appellant is first offender as there is no conviction slip annexed with file--Admittedly charas is less harmful and dangerous unlike other narcotics such as heroin.
[Para 5 & 6] A & B
2011 SCMR 965 and 2015 SCMR 735.
Mr. Mushtaq Ahmad Dhoon, Advocate for Appellant.
Mr. Muhammad Arshad Ali Farooqi, Deputy Prosecutor General for State.
Date of hearing: 4.5.2023.
Judgment
Ali Zia Bajwa, J.--Wasif Ullah Khan son of Sher Ali Khan, caste Pathan, resident of Tarri Khel, District Mianwali (hereinafter ‘the appellant’), was booked in case FIR No. 248/2016, dated 05.10.2016, offence under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 (hereinafter ‘CNSA, 1997’), registered with Police Station Mochh, District Mianwali with the allegation that he was found in possession of contraband charas weighing 1340-grams. He was tried by learned Additional Sessions Judge notified as Judge Special Court CNSA, 1997, Mianwali (hereinafter ‘trial Court) under the afore-mentioned offence. Trial Court, vide judgment dated 12.11.2018 (hereinafter the impugned judgment), convicted and sentenced the appellant in the following terms:
Ø Under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. Sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and six months with fine of Rs. 20,000/-and in case of default in payment thereof, to further undergo striple imprisonment for five months.
Ø Benefit of Section 382-B, C.P.C. was also extended in favour of the appellant.
3. Today, at the very outset, learned counsel for the appellant submits that he does not oppose the conviction of the appellant, however, Prays for reduction in his sentence. Learned Deputy Prosecutor General does not controvert the prayer made by learned counsel for the appellant.
4. Arguments heard, record perused.
5. As learned counsel for the appellant does not oppose conviction of the appellant, therefore, we do not feel it necessary to discuss the prosecution evidence in detail. However, while going through the record available on the file we have noticed that the prosecution version qua the recovery of the contraband charas weighing 1340-grams was substantiated through the statements of Muhammad Tariq Inspector/complainant (PW-5) and Ahmad Khan 184/C (PW-6). In their statements, the prosecution witnesses gave detailed pen-picture of the recovery of charas from the appellant and they remained consistent on salient aspects of the prosecution version. The chain of custody of the narcotic substance remained unbroken and report of the Punjab Forensic Science Agency (Exh.PD) is also positive. Hence, the learned trial Court was justified in recording conviction against the appellant under Section 9(c) of the CNSA, 1997.
6. As far as contention of learned counsel for the appellant qua reduction in sentence is concerned, according to the report submitted by the Superintendent, District Jail, Bhakkar, through Letter No. 4095, dated 07.04.2023, the appellant has already served out four years and twenty four days of his sentence. The report does not reflect that the appellant was involved in any untoward activity during his confinement in jail, recorded in his history ticket as envisaged in Rule 66 of the Pakistan Prisons Rules, 1978, meaning thereby that his conduct in jail remained satisfactory. While examining the record we have also noticed that the appellant is first offender as there is no conviction slip annexed with the file. Admittedly the charas is less harmful and dangerous unlike other narcotics such as heroin. Therefore, to the extent of quantum of sentence, we have been persuaded to hold that case of the appellant calls for a lenient view. Guidance is sought from the ratio decidendi of august Supreme Court of Pakistan in Abdul Rehman vs. The State-2011 SCMR 965 and Khuda Bakhsh vs. The State-2015 SCMR 735.
7. While considering the afore-stated facts and circumstances and seeking guidance from the judgments of the Apex Court, we have been persuaded to reduce the sentence of the appellant to that already undergone by him. However, his sentence of fine and the effect in case of default in the same would remain intact as directed by the trial Court. The appellant is directed to make the payment of fine of Rs. 20,000/-within one month, otherwise he shall be dealt with in accordance with the law. Office shall transmit the copy of this judgment to the trial Court for further process. On the payment of fine, surety of the appellant shall be discharged from the liability.
8. While maintaining conviction of the appellant and the above reduction in his sentence, the instant criminal appeal hereby stands dismissed.
(A.A.K.) Appeal dismissed
0 Comments