ASMAT ULLAH alias BILLA PATHAN vs THE STATE
This criminal miscellaneous petition was filed by the petitioner seeking suspension of his conviction and sentence of eight years rigorous imprisonment, along with a fine, imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, for an offense under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The petitioner argued that the prosecution failed to prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt and highlighted that he had already served five years of his sentence. The State opposed the relief. Upon perusal of the record and noting the significant period of incarceration already undergone by the petitioner, the Lahore High Court held that the contentions raised required further probe and determination during the appeal process. Consequently, the Court exercised its discretion to suspend the conviction and sentence, granting the petitioner bail subject to the furnishing of bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 100,000 with one surety. The judgment affirms the principle that where an appeal is unlikely to be decided in the near future and a substantial portion of the sentence has been served, suspension of sentence is appropriate pending final adjudication.
- Can a conviction and sentence be suspended pending the final decision of an appeal?
- Does the fact that a convict has already served a substantial portion of their sentence constitute a ground for suspension of sentence?
- Is the suspension of a sentence under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 permissible when the appeal is likely to take a long time to decide?
- Section 6, Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 9(c), Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
ORDER
' C.M. No.1 of 2003 ' Through this petition, the petitioner has sought for the suspension of his conviction and sentence dated 23-10-2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, whereby the petitioner was convicted under sections 6/9(c) of C.N.S.A. And sentenced to 8 years' R.I. With a fine of Rs.50,000 in default to suffer S.I. For one year.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court is against law and facts; that the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the charge against the petitioner beyond any shadow of doubt; that the petitioner has already undergone his sentence for a period of five years as is obvious from the report of Superintendent Central Jail, Lahore; that it will take long time to decide the appeal of the petitioner.
3. On the contrary the learned State counsel strongly opposed the petition.
4. Heard both the parties. Record perused.
5. Sine:: the petitioner has already undergone for a period of five years as is obvious from the report of Superintendent of Central Jail, Lahore. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner need further probe and determination, therefore, we suspend the conviction and sentence awarded to the petitioner subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lac only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate.