RASHID AMUDALA vs THE STATE
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Special Court convicting the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for possessing heroin recovered from capsules expelled from his stomach, resulting in a sentence of eight years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine. The core legal question concerned the quantum of sentence and whether leniency should be extended given that the appellant was a first offender and allegedly acted as a carrier. The Lahore High Court upheld the conviction based on the prosecution's evidence establishing the recovery and safe custody of the narcotics. However, the court partially accepted the appeal regarding the sentence, reducing the term of rigorous imprisonment from eight years to six years and lowering the fine, while maintaining the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The key principle laid down is that while narcotics convictions based on solid recovery evidence are upheld, appellate courts may exercise discretion to reduce sentences for first-time offenders acting as carriers under mitigating circumstances.
- Whether the recovery of narcotic capsules from the stomach wash of an accused is sufficient to sustain a conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
- Can an appellate court reduce the sentence of a first offender convicted as a drug carrier?
- Whether the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 applies to convictions 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.---Rashid Amudala appellant was convicted under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 by the learned Judge Special Court, Control of Narcotic Substances, Lahore vide judgment dated 15-4-2004 in case F.I.R. No,13 of 2003 dated 2-6-2003 registered at Police Station ANF, Lahore and sentenced to eight years' R.I. And fine of Rs,2 lacs, in default whereof to further undergo one years' S.I. He was given the benefit under section 382-B, Cr .
P. C .
2. Briefly the prosecution case is that Syed Sijjil Haider, Assistant Director, ANF apprehended the accused from International departure lounge of Allama Iqbal International Airport, Lahore. He admitted that he had swa llowed capsules containing heroin. In pursuance of this disclosure he was got admitted in Services Hospital, Lahore. On 2-3-2003 at 1-30 p.m. Dr. Khalil Ahmad, Medical Officer, Medical Unit No,2, Services Hospital, Lahore handed over 89 capsules containing heroin taken from the stomach wash of the accused to Rao Zahid Mehmood Inspector, ANF, Lahore. After cutting down the capsules 1300 grams heroin was recovered.
3. The prosecution to prove its case examined as many of five witnesses. Muhammad Yasin P.W.1 chalked out the formal F.I.R. Exh.PA. He also deposed about the safe custody of the sealed parcels containing heroin in the Malkhana of the police station. Abdul Ghafoor P.W. Transmitted the sealed parcels said to contain heroin to the office of Chemical Examiner. Dr. Khalil Ahmad P.W.3 stated that 89 capsules were obtained from the stomach wash of accused which he handed over to Zahid Mehmood P.W.5. Abdul Rehman P.W.4 is the witness of recovery. Rao Zahid Mehmood Inspector P.W.5 is the complainant and investigated the case.
4. The accused was examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. He denied the allegations and recovery of capsules containing heroin from his stomach wash. He neither opted to appear as his own witness under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. Nor produced any defence evidence.
5. According to the learned counsel the appellant is a first offender and was misled to act as a carrier for a principal who himself is living outside the territorial limits of this country. That the sentence is excessive and the trial Court ought to have shown some leniency to a foreigner under the circumstances.
6. Whereas, we uphold the order of conviction, we reduce the sentence from eight years to six years' R.I. The sentence of fine is also reduced from Rs,2 lacs to Rs,50,000, in default whereof the convict shall further undergo three months' S.I. He is allowed the benefit under section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
The appeal is disposed of.
Sentence reduced.