JOSHUA CHIGBOGU vs THE STATE
The petitioner, a Nigerian national, sought leave to appeal against his conviction and sentence for possession of 3.5 kilograms of heroin, for which he was sentenced to ten years rigorous imprisonment under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. Having abandoned his challenge to the conviction before the High Court, the petitioner limited his arguments before the Supreme Court to a plea for the reduction of his sentence. He contended that his status as a foreigner and the failure of the Chemical Examiner to specify the percentage of heroin in the recovered powder warranted a reduced sentence. The Supreme Court rejected these arguments, holding that nationality is irrelevant to the application of penal laws, which apply with equal rigor to all persons. Furthermore, the Court held that the sentence must be proportionate to the quantity of the narcotic in its marketable form, regardless of its chemical composition. Finding that the trial court had already exercised leniency given the statutory maximum punishment, the Court declined to grant leave to appeal.
- Does the status of a defendant as a foreign national provide grounds for the reduction of a criminal sentence?
- Is the sentence for possession of narcotics under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 dependent on the chemical purity or percentage of the substance recovered?
- Should a sentence for narcotics possession be based on the quantity of the substance in its marketable form?
- Section 9(c), Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
' NASIR-UL-MULK, J.--- The petitioner, a Nigerian citizen, and his fellow countryman, were convicted by the Judge Special Court, Control of Narcotic Substances, Lahore, on 29-12-2002, under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 (C.N.S.A). The petitioner, who had been found in possession of 3.5 kilograms heroin was sentenced to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs,2,00,000 in default whereof to further suffer one year simple imprisonment. From his co-accused, 500 grams of heroin was recovered and he was sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs,50,000 in default of payment whereof to suffer six months simple imprisonment.
The petitioner's co-accused neither challenged his conviction and sentence before the High Court nor before this Court. Though the petitioner had assailed his conviction and sentence before the Lahore High Court but during arguments before the Court, the counsel representing the petitioner decided not to question the conviction and only prayed for reduction in sentence, which was declined by judgment and order, dated 10-2-2004, from which leave to file appeal is now sought.
2. Learned Advocate Supreme Court representing the petitioner did not advance any argument on merits of the case, and quite rightly so as the petitioner had not questioned his conviction before the High Court and even otherwise, there is overwhelming credible evidence to establish his guilt.
The learned counsel, however, stressed for the reduction of sentence, urging that the petitioner is a foreigner and that since the Chemical Examiner's report did not specify the percentage of heroin in the powder recovered, the quantum of his sentence cannot be properly assessed.
3. Both the contentions are not relevant for the reduction of sentence. Being a foreigner is not a consideration for determination the quantum of sentence as the penal law of the country is to be applied with same rigor to everyone subjected to it, regardless of his nationality. As to the second contention, the sentence is to be proportionate to the heroin powder in the form in which it is marketable, regardless of its composition. The petitioner has already been dealt with leniently by the trial Court by sentencing him to ten years imprisonment under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, which carries the maximum punishment of death. For these reasons, no case is made out for granting leave to appeal, which ts therefore, declined and the .