GULDARAZ KHAN vs THE STATE
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge-III, Nowshera, regarding an offence under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The appellant, convicted under Section 9(a) of the Act, was sentenced to one year of rigorous imprisonment and a fine. The core legal question was whether the sentence imposed was excessive given the appellant's background and circumstances. The appellant's counsel did not contest the conviction on merits but sought a reduction in sentence. The Court, upon reviewing the record, noted that the appellant was a first-time offender, a young student, and not a habitual drug trafficker. Relying on the principle that leniency is appropriate for first-time offenders who are not involved in professional drug trafficking, the Court maintained the conviction but reduced the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone. The fine and the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, were upheld.
- Can the sentence of a first-time offender convicted under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 be reduced to the period already undergone?
- Is a young student with no prior criminal record entitled to leniency in sentencing for a narcotics offence?
- Does the appellate court have the discretion to reduce a sentence while maintaining the conviction for a narcotics offence?
- Section 9, Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 9(a), Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
' MUHAMMAD ALAM KHAN, J.---This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order of Mr. Muhammad Sabir, Additional Sessions Judge-III, Nowshera dated 7-5-2008 whereby appellant Gul Daraz son of Sarfraz Khan resident of Zando Banda, Tehsil and District Nowshera involved in case F.I.R. No,524 dated 31-8-2006 under section 9 Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, Police Station Rislapur, was convicted under section 9(a) Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and sentenced to one year R.I. And to pay a fine of Rs,5000 or in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was however, extended to him.
2. Mr. Rehan Saeed, Advocate learned counsel representing the appellant at the outset did not opt to contest the appeal on merits and in this connection requested for reduction of the sentence.
3. Mr. Ikramullah Khan, learned Additional Advocate-General appearing for the State opposed the assertion of the learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that the appellant has already been dealt with leniently by the learned trial Court and in view of the heinous nature of the offence, the appellant is not entitled to the reduction of the sentence.
4. We have given our anxious consideration to the facts of the case and have gone through the, record of the case and have found that: that the appellant a first offender and is neither a drug- trafficker nor previously involved in such like cases. Furthermore, the appellant is young student of about eighteen years, thus the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant needs due consideration.
5. Furthermore, as held earlier nothing is available on record to prove that the appellant is a drug trafficker or involved in such like activities previously Thus, his case can be considered leniently and he could be granted reduction in the quantum of sentence as held in the case of "Nazar Muhammad v. The State" reported in 1986 PCr.LJ 2065.
6. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed and while maintaining the conviction of the appellant his sentence is reduced from one year R.I., to the period already undergone and the sentence of the amounting to Rs,5000 is maintained, in default of payment of fine he will have to undergo S.I. For three months. The benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Already extended to the convict-appellant shall remain intact.
' The above are the reasons for our short order of even date.