IRFAN ALI vs THE STATE
This criminal appeal concerns the conviction of two appellants, Irfan Ali and Shah Jehan, who were sentenced to 14 years of rigorous imprisonment each, along with fines, for the possession of narcotics under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The appellants were apprehended in a vehicle containing three kilograms of Charas and one kilogram of opium. While the appellants challenged the quantum of their sentences, they did not contest the underlying conviction. The Lahore High Court reviewed the prosecution's evidence, which included testimony from the complainant and investigating officers, and found the conviction to be sound, noting that the official witnesses remained unimpeached. However, upon reviewing the circumstances of the recovery, the Court determined that the original sentence was excessive. Consequently, the Court upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence of imprisonment from 14 years to 6 years, while maintaining the fine and the benefit of Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The judgment reaffirms the court's discretion to modify sentences based on the proportionality of the punishment relative to the recovery.
- Can an appellate court reduce a sentence imposed under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 if it finds the original term excessive?
- Does the failure of an accused to impeach official witnesses support the upholding of a conviction?
- Is the benefit of Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applicable to sentences imposed under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
- Section 9-C, Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 340(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
' ALI NAWAZ CHOWHAN, J.--Irfan Ali, appellant in Criminal Appeal No,2281 of 2003 and Shah Jehan appellant in Criminal Appeal No,87-J of 2004 were convicted under section 9-C of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mianwali in case F.I.R. No,154, dated 25-5-2002 registered at Police Station, Daud Khel, Mianwali and sentenced to 14 years' R.I. Each with a fine of Rs,20,000 each or in lieu thereof to further undergo one year's imprisonment. They were given the benefit under section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Both the appeals are being disposed of through this single judgment.
2. Briefly the prosecution case is that Muhammad Rahtas Khan S.-I./Incharge Computer Check Post on 25-5-2002 stopped Toyota Corolla Car No,1216/B-Charsada in which both the appellants were travelling. The police party checked the aforesaid vehicle and during checking found three packets Charas weighing 3 Kilograms and one packet of opium weighing one kilogram from the driver seat.
3. The prosecution to prove its case examined as many as seven witnesses. Muhammad Asghar Moharrir P.W.1, recorded formal F.I.R. Exh.P.A./1 on the basis of complaint Exh.P.A. He also deposed about the safe custody of the sealed parcels containing Charas and opium in the Malkhana of the Police Station. Muhammad Asghar Constable, P.W.2 deposed about the proclamation issued against Muhammad Arshad Ali accused. Ijaz Ahmad S.-I., P.W.3, arrested Arshad Hussain, accused.
Muhammad Aslam, Inspector, P.W.4 conducted the investigation in this case. Muhammad Rahtas Khan, S.-I., P.W.5 is the complainant, who reiterated the contents of the F.I.R. Lal Khan constable, P.W.6, transmitted the sealed parcels said to contain Charas and opium to the office of Chemical Examiner. Mushtaq Ahmad, Head Constable, P.W.7 is the witness of recovery.
4. The accused were examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. They denied the allegations and recovery of narcotics. They did not opt to appear as their own witnesses under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. But produced Ghulam Qasim D.W.1, Amir Saeed D.W.2, Khurshid Sultan, D.W.3 and Malik Rehman, D.W.4 to prove their innocence.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants has not assailed the order of conviction but has rather, impugned the quantum of sentence by stating that this was harsh and excessive. According to the learned counsel in similar cases the quantum of sentence given by the Courts elsewhere, particularly in N.-W.F.P. Was far less.
6. We also find that the official witnesses have not been impeached and we attach no doubt with their testimony and uphold the order of conviction. But keeping in view the recovery effected of indigenous opium and Charas, we reduce the sentence from 14 years to 6 years while keeping the sentence of fine intact. The appellants are given the benefit under section 382-B, Cr.P.C. The appeals are disposed of accordingly.