Mst. TAJ BIBI vs THE STATE
This matter originated as a jail petition filed by Mst. Taj Bibi seeking leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, which had upheld her conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The petitioner had been sentenced to eight years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000 for the possession of narcotics. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the conviction was sustainable based on the evidence and whether the sentence imposed was appropriate given the circumstances of the offender. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, noting that the recovery of narcotics was satisfactorily proven, supported by the petitioner's physical arrest on the spot and a positive report from the Chemical Examiner. However, the Court exercised judicial discretion regarding the sentence, observing that the petitioner acted as a carrier and was a woman. Consequently, the Court reduced the sentence of imprisonment from eight years to six years and reduced the fine to Rs. 50,000, while maintaining the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
- Can the Supreme Court reduce a sentence of imprisonment imposed under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 based on the gender and role of the offender?
- Is the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applicable to convictions under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
- Does a positive Chemical Examiner report combined with on-the-spot arrest constitute sufficient proof for conviction 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
' SARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN, J.--- Mst. Taj Bibi seeks leave to appeal against the judgment, dated. 27-10-2004 of Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, whereby, her appeal was dismissed and she stood convicted under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for eight years along with a fine of Rs,1,00,000.
2. The recovery is satisfactorily proved in the instant case reinforced by the physical arrest of the petitioner on the spot as well as the report of Chemical Examiner which is in positive. No, exception can be taken to the conviction aforesaid.
3. So far as the sentence is concerned, the petitioner seems to be a carrier and she being lady, we propose to take lenient view. We believe that a sentence of imprisonment for six years and fine of Rs,50,000, in the circumstances, would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly the jail petition, after conversion into appeal, is allowed to the extent of sentence alone. The imprisonment of eight years is reduced to six years with a fine of Rs,50,000 in default of payment whereof she would undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Benefit under section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Shall be available.
Cited by 12 cases
- Kareem Bux vs The State 2024 SHC 1382
- Zain Ali vs The State 2021 P Cr. L J 1002
- Talat Parvaiz and 2 others vs The State 2020 YLR 1225
- SARTAJ KHAN vs The STATE 2019 YLR 2287
- REHMATULLAH Versus State 2018 YLRN 240
- ALAMGIR and another vs The STATE 2015 YLR 2284
- MUHAMMAD UMAR vs The STATE 2015 YLR 1668
- NOOR MUHAMMAD Versus State 2015 PCrLJ 30
- REHMATULLAH And Another vs THE STATE 2011 YLR 2477
- KASHIF AMIR vs THE STATE 2010 PLD Supreme Court 1052
- KASHIF AMIR vs STATE 2011 PLJ SC 291
- Rehmatullah S/o. Faizullah and Jan Muhammad S/o Haji Raffu vs The State