SAIF-UR-REHMAN vs THE STATE

' KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, J.---Saifur-ur-Rehman petitioner was tried for having been found in possession of 259 kgs. Of CHARAS PUKHTA; 20 kgs. CHARAS GARDA and 5.500 kgs. Of OPIUM which quantity of narcotics had been recovered from different cavities of the Jeep being driven by him which cavities had been especially created for the purpose. As a result of the trial which ensued, a Special Court at Peshawar found him guilty of the charge; convicted him under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and punished him with sentence of imprisonment of life and a fine of Rs,5,00,000 or five years' S.I. In default of payment of fine. His appeal before the Peshawar High Court failed which has brought him to this Court through Jail Petition No,212 of 2007.

2. The learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner, submitted at the very outset that in view of the confession made by Saifur-Rehman petitioner which confession had been recorded by the competent Magistrate at Peshawar under section 164 of the Cr,.P.C. He would not contest the conviction recorded against him and consequently prayed only for reduction in the quantum of punishment awarded to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was only a carrier who had accepted to transport the said huge quantity of narcotics for some monetary compensation.

3. Having examined the record, we find that the choice exercised by the learned Advocate Supreme Court for not contesting the conviction recorded against the petitioner was not un- founded as, in addition to the said confessional statement made by him, sufficient evidence existed on the record to sustain the said conviction recorded against him.

4. We have pondered over the prayer of the learned advocate Supreme Court vis-a-vis the reduction in quantum of punishment but find it difficult to grant the same. Acceding to such a request would amount to laying down a law that a person who commits a crime not for any personal motive or reasons but agrees to the same only on hire and for some monetary reward, would always be entitled to compassion, sympathy, mercy and could consequently demand leniency in the matter of quantum of punishment. We are afraid, we cannot be a party to creating such a law which would amount to encouraging and in fact licensing the practice of hired assassins, hired dacoits, hired robbers and hired criminal of other sorts. In fact we would, on the contrary, declare that a hired offender was not entitled to any leniency or sympathy in the matter of quantum of punishment and such are the people who deserved to be dealt with an iron hand and deserved the same kind of treatment which would be warranted in the case of any other criminal, if not stricter and harsher treatment.

5. Having thus examined all aspects of the matter, we find no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed. .