GUL RAEEF KHAN vs THE STATE
This criminal petition arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court maintaining the petitioner's conviction under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The petitioner faced trial before the Additional Sessions Judge, Mianwali, and was sentenced to fourteen years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine. The High Court maintained the conviction while slightly modifying the default sentence for non-payment of fine. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner's counsel did not press the petition on merits but sought leniency regarding the quantum of sentence, citing mitigating circumstances such as the petitioner being a first-time offender, a young man, and the sole breadwinner. The State raised no objection to a reduction in sentence given the circumstances. The Supreme Court held that while the prosecution successfully established the charge through overwhelming incriminating evidence, the sentence of fourteen years' rigorous imprisonment could be appropriately reduced. The Court ruled that considering the mitigating circumstances and the State's concession, the sentence under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 is reduced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment, maintaining the fine and the benefit of section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
- Whether the Supreme Court can reduce the quantum of sentence under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 when the conviction itself is not challenged on merits?
- Can mitigating circumstances such as being a first offender and sole breadwinner justify a reduction in sentence for a narcotics offense?
- Whether the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applies when the sentence is modified by the appellate court?
- Section 9(c), Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.---This petition has been filed against judgment, dated 10th September, 2003 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Criminal Appeal No,1631 of 2000.
2. Precisely stating facts of the case are that petitioner faced trial under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Mianwali who vide judgment, dated 30th October, 2000 sentenced him to undergo 14 years' R.I. With fine of Rs,1,00,000 and in default whereof to further undergo six years' RI. On appeal learned High Court vide impugned judgment maintained the conviction, however, sentence in lieu of non-payment of fine was reduced from six years' R.I. To one year's R.I. With the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. As such instant petition has been filed for leave to appeal.
3. Learned counsel stated that he has been instructed not to press this petition on merits, however, make a request for reduction in the quantum of sentence on the ground that petitioner is first offender, only bread earning person of his family and also a young man.
4. Raja Abdur Rehman, learned Assistant Advocate-General, present in Court, after having gone through the available record stated that charge has been fully established against the petitioner as prosecution has produced overwhelming incriminating evidence against him. However, he expressed no objection if the quantum of sentence is reduced keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case.
5. We have heard both the sides and have also gone through the material available on record. It is true that prosecution has successfully established charge against the petitioner by producing overwhelming incriminating evidence, however, keeping in view the request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and grounds put forward by him for reduction in the quantum of sentence, as well as considering the concession made by learned Assistant Advocate General conviction is maintained, but sentence under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 is reduced from 14 years' R.I. To that of seven years' R.I. With fine of Rs,1,00,000 in default whereof to undergo one year's R.I. With the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Which has already been extended to him by the learned High Court.
' Petition stands disposed of with the above modification in the quantum of sentence.
Cited by 2 cases
- FAKHAR ZAMAN vs The STATE 2014 MLD 690
- Muhammad Shahzada alias Shahzado vs The State, etc 2025 SHC KHI 1080