ZAFAR ABBAS vs STATE
This criminal appeal was filed by the appellant, Zaffar Abbas, challenging his conviction and sentence under Section 9-C of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997. The appellant had been convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Layyah, for the possession of 1015 grams of charas and 1020 grams of opium, resulting in a sentence of seven years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000. Before the Lahore High Court, the appellant did not contest the conviction itself but requested a lenient view regarding the sentence, citing his status as a first-time offender. The Court, upon reviewing the record and noting the appellant's lack of prior criminal history, accepted the plea for leniency. Consequently, while the Court maintained the conviction, it exercised its discretion to reduce the sentence of seven years rigorous imprisonment to five years rigorous imprisonment, while upholding the remaining terms of the trial court's judgment. The appeal was thus disposed of with the modified sentence, establishing the principle that a first-time offender may be entitled to a reduction in sentence in narcotics cases.
- Can the appellate court reduce a sentence under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 for a first-time offender?
- Is the status of being a first-time offender a valid ground for mitigating a sentence in narcotics possession cases?
- Section 9-C, Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
Saif-ur-Rehman, J.--Zaffar Abbas appellant was tried u/S. 9-C of CNSA 1997 by the learned Addl: Sessions Judge Layyah in case FIR No, 86 dated 19.6.2005 registered at P.S. Sadar Layyah and on conclusion of trial was found guilty for keeping possession of 1015 grams charas and 1020 grams opium, convicted accordingly and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years and to pay fine amounting to Rs, 10,000/- and in default thereof to undergo S.I for 3 months vide judgment dated 27.6.2006.
2. The appellant has assailed his conviction and sentence through this appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant would feel satisfied if a lenient view was taken in awarding sentence because the appellant was a first offender. Reliance in this regard was placed on 2007 SCM R 206.
4. In view of the above contentions we do not feel necessary to I reproduce the detailed facts. The appellant is first offender and has no previous criminal history. Therefore, while maintaining the conviction we reduce sentence of R.I. for 7 years to R.I for 5 years maintaining the remaining judgment.
5. This appeal is disposed of accordingly.