TANVEER AHMED KHAN vs THE STATE
The appellant challenged his conviction and sentence under section 9(b) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the possession of 250 grams of charas, resulting in a trial court sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5,000. At the hearing, the appellant's counsel did not contest the conviction on merits but sought a reduction in the sentence, noting that the appellant was a first-time offender and had already served a substantial portion of his imprisonment. The State counsel did not seriously oppose the request. The Lahore High Court upheld the conviction based on the unchallenged findings, but partially allowed the appeal regarding the sentence, reducing the imprisonment to the period already undergone (approximately one year and seven months) and lowering the fine to Rs.3,000 with default imprisonment, while maintaining the benefit under section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The key principle laid down is that appellate courts may exercise discretion to reduce a narcotics offender's sentence to the period already undergone considering mitigating circumstances such as being a first-time offender and the duration already spent behind bars.
- Whether an appellate court can reduce the sentence of imprisonment for an offence under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, to the period already undergone when the conviction itself is not challenged on merits?
- Can the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, be extended to a convict sentenced under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
- Section 9(b), Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
' M.BILAL KHAN, J.---The appellant, namely, Tanveer Ahmad Khan Azhar son of Muhammad Sharif, was tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Pakpattan Sharif, in case F.I.R. No.282, dated 25-6-2005, registered with Police Station City Pakpattan Sharif for an offence under section 9(b) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for retaining in his possession 250 grams of charas. The learned trial Judge by virtue of his judgment dated 8-7-2006 found him guilty of the said charge, convicted and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for three years with a fine of Rs.5,000 or in default of payment thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for two months: Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was, however, extended to him. He has appealed.
2. Precisely the allegation against the appellant, according to the F.I.R. At the instance of Mazhar Jameel, A.S.-I. Was that on 25-6-2005 he was apprehended by the complainant and his search yielded Charas weighing 250 grams in addition to Rs.320; out of the recovered substance ten grams were separated for chemical analysis. The report of the Chemical Examiner was in the positive.
3. At the outset, the learned counsel for the appellant 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 ground that he is not a previous record-holder and is behind the bars since the date of his arrest.
4. The learned counsel for the State does not seriously oppose the prayer made by learned counsel for the appellant.
5.. Keeping in view the aforesaid situation, we are of the view that as the appellant is in judicial custody since the date of his arrest and has already served out about one year and seven months sentence, therefore, reduction in sentence to the period already undergone by him will meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal to the extent of appellant's conviction recorded by the leaned trial Court, but allow the same partly to the extent of his sentence of imprisonment, which is hereby reduced to the one already undergone by him. Sentence of fine is also reduced to Rs.3,000 and in case of non-payment thereof, he shall suffer simple imprisonment for one month.
Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Allowed to him shall remain intact.
6. With the above modification in the sentence of the appellant, this appeal stands disposed of.