DILDAR vs THE STATE
This criminal appeal challenges the sentence awarded to the appellant by the Sessions Judge, Khushab, under section 9(b) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for possessing 140 grams of Charas. The core legal question concerns the quantum of sentence in relation to the meagre quantity of narcotics recovered from a first-time offender. The Lahore High Court held that while the conviction on merit was not challenged and thus maintained, the sentence imposed was disproportionately severe under the circumstances. The Court reduced the substantive sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone by the appellant and modified the fine amount. The key principle laid down is that for minor quantities of narcotics where the conviction is not contested, mitigating circumstances such as being a first-time offender and having served a substantial portion of the sentence justify a reduction in punishment to meet the ends of justice.
- Whether the sentence of imprisonment can be reduced to the period already undergone in cases involving a meagre quantity of narcotics where the conviction is not challenged?
- Does the appellate court have the discretion to modify a fine imposed under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act upon considering mitigating circumstances of the offender?
- Section 9(b), Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' M. BILAL KHAN, J----Dildar son of Faqeer Muhammad (the appellant) had been tied by the learned Sessions Judge, Khushab for retaining in his possession Charas weighing 140 grams, in case F.I.R.
No,30, dated 18-2-2006, registered with Police Station Mitha Tiwana, District Khushab for an offence under section 9(b) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The learned Trial Judge by virtue of his judgment dated 9-10-2006 found him guilty of the said charge, convicted and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for two years with a fine of Rs,25,000 or in default of payment thereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. Benefit 6f section 382-B, Cr. P. C. Was however, extended to him. He has appealed.
2. At the outset, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that he does not challenge conviction of the appellant on merit, however, he prays for reduction in the. Sentence awarded to him on the grounds that the substance allegedly recovered from him was meagre he is not a previous record holder and has already served out ten months of imprisonment.
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State does not seriously oppose the prayer made by the learned counsel for the appellant.
4. Keeping in view the aforesaid situation, it has been observed that keeping in view the quantity of the allegedly recovered substance from possession of the appellant, the sentence awarded to the appellant was severe. Therefore, to meet the ends of justice, it would be appropriate to reduce his sentence to the period already undergone by him. Accordingly, while maintaining conviction of the appellant under section 9(b) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, we reduce the sentence of the appellant to the period already undergone by him. The sentence of fine of Rs,25,000 is also reduced to Rs, 10,000 and in case of non-payment thereof, the appellant shall suffer simple imprisonment for one month. If the appellant fails to deposit the amount of fine within one month from today, he will be taken into custody to undergo his sentence.
5. With the above modification in the sentence of the appellant, this appeal stands disposed of.
Sentence reduced.