MUHAMMAD AYOOB vs THE STATE
This criminal appeal challenges the sentence imposed for the possession of narcotics. The appellant was convicted for possessing 40 kilograms of Charas, but only 8 kilograms were sent for chemical analysis, while the remaining 32 kilograms were not sampled. The core legal question was whether the sentence of life imprisonment was appropriate given that the chemical analysis only confirmed the possession of 8 kilograms of narcotics, thereby potentially excluding the case from the stricter sentencing provisions of Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The State conceded that the conviction should be maintained but that the sentence should be reduced in light of the partial sampling and established precedents. The Court dismissed the appeal regarding the conviction but accepted the plea for sentencing mitigation. It held that where only a portion of the recovered narcotics is chemically verified, the sentence should be proportionate to the verified quantity. Consequently, the Court reduced the sentence from life imprisonment to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and reduced the fine, while maintaining the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
- Does the failure to chemically analyze the entire quantity of recovered narcotics necessitate a reduction in the sentence imposed?
- Can a sentence of life imprisonment be maintained when only a portion of the alleged narcotics is verified by chemical examination?
- Is the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applicable to sentences reduced on appeal?
- Section 9(c), Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' Learned counsel for the appellant at very outset submits that only 8 packets containing 8 Kgs.
2. Charas were sent for chemical examination whereas no sample was taken from remaining 32 packets weighing 32 Kgs. He further submits that the case against the appellant is only for the possession of, 8 Kgs. Charas and his case does not fall under the provision of section 9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. While saying so he relied upon cases of Jameel Khan and others v. State PLD 2008 Kar. 376, a case of Waris v. State PLD 2006 Kar. 648 and a case Muhammad Hashim v. The State PLD 2004 SC 856 and submits that this Court and the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in such cases reduced the sentence from life imprisonment to 14 years and/or 10 years according to the proportionate recovery. He submits that he will not challenge the impugned judgment and conviction awarded to the appellant but in view of the recovery of 8 Kgs.
3. Charas from him and pursuance of aforementioned case-laws his sentence be reduced for the period already undergone and sentence of fine also be remitted as he is very poor and he has already served out sentence more than 8 years.
4. The learned State Counsel has not controverted the legal plea taken by learned counsel for the appellant and confirms that only 81 packets containing 8 Kgs. Charas were sealed and sent for Chemical Examination whereas no sample was taken out from 32 packets' containing 32 Kgs.
5. Charas and he frankly concedes that the sentence awarded to the appellant be reduced to already undergone and fine also be remitted in circumstances.
6. ' We have heard. Both learned counsel for the appellant and State, perused the material available in case file and gone through the case-laws referred by learned counsel for the appellant.
7. In view of the above facts and in pursuance of case-laws cited above we dismiss this appeal and maintain the conviction, however, the substantive sentence is reduced from life imprisonment to 10 years' R.I. And the fine is also reduced from Rs,3,00,000 to Rs,50,000 and in case of default in payment of fine, he has to undergo sentence of two months' R.I. The benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
8. Already extended to the appellant will remain intact. The remission if any granted to him as per Prisons Rules may be included in serving his substantive sentence.
Cited by 2 cases
- ZUBAIR AHMED Versus State 2016 GBLR 166
- KHALIDA AKRAM vs THE STATE 2013 MLD 176