MAQBOOL MASIH vs THE STATE
This criminal appeal arises from the conviction of the appellant for the possession of 7 kilograms of charas under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for which the trial court imposed a sentence of life imprisonment and a fine. The core legal question concerns whether the sentence imposed was disproportionate given the quantity recovered and the appellant's status as a first-time offender. Upon review, the High Court maintained the conviction but found the sentence of life imprisonment to be excessively harsh, particularly in light of precedents established by the Supreme Court regarding sentencing discretion in narcotics cases. The Court observed that the appellant had already served a substantial period, including remissions, totaling over twelve years. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal regarding the conviction but exercised its discretion to reduce the sentence to the period already undergone and remitted the fine. The key principle laid down is that courts should exercise leniency in sentencing first-time offenders in narcotics cases where the sentence appears disproportionately harsh compared to established judicial precedents.
- Can an appellate court reduce a sentence of life imprisonment to the period already undergone in a narcotics case?
- Is a sentence of life imprisonment for the possession of 7 kilograms of charas considered disproportionately harsh?
- Does the status of a first-time offender justify a reduction in sentence for a narcotics conviction?
- Section 9(a), Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 9(c), Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
1. ' SAJJAD ALI SHAH, J.---The appellant upon being found guilty of offence under section 9(c) of CNS Act for possessing 7 Kgs. Of charas was convicted by Special Judge CNS and was sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and fine of Rs,200,000 and in case of non-payment to further undergo imprisonment for three months.
2. ' Learned Counsel for the Appellant contends that though the Appellant has a very good case on merits as only 7 Kgs. Charas was allegedly recovered from him and the trial Court instead of awarding. 14 years of imprisonment directed R.I. For life which is too harsh of a punishment.
3. Secondly according to learned Counsel 7 Kgs of charas comprising 7 bundles containing number of rods were allegedly recovered from Appellant while only 10 grams were taken from each packet, therefore, the case if any against the Appellant would fall under section 9(a) of CNS Act.
4. Notwithstanding the Applicant is placing himself at the mercy of the Court and states that he would not press the instant appeal in case this Court while maintaining conviction reduce the sentence to one already gone. It is further contended that the appellant being first offender and only bread earner of the family deserves a lenient view: Learned counsel has invited our attention to the Jail Roll and has contended that the appellant has served out more than 12 years including remission.
5. ' In the facts and circumstances of the case, learned Additional Prosecutor-General Sindh has no objection in case the conviction is maintained and sentence is reduced to already undergone.
6. ' We have heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties and have perused the record including Jail Roll which reflects that the appellant has served out substantive sentence of three years, eight months and eight days and has earned remission of eight years, two months and two days which makes the total served out period of more than twelve years.
7. ' The record further reflects that 7 bundles of charas weighing 1 Kg, each was recovered from the Appellant and each bundle contained number of rods notwithstanding, only 10 grams were taken from each packet for Chemical Analysis. The contention of Mr. Madad Ali Shah in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Muhammad Hashim v. The State PLD 2004 SC 856 carries weight. Further in our view the .Sentence appears to be very harsh as the apex Court in the case of Niazuddin v. The State 2007 SCM R 206 upon recovery of 5 Kgs. Of heroin reduced the sentence from 10 years to 6 years and needless to record that the heroin is more costly and has more devastating effect than charas and in the case of Gul Raeef Khan v. The State 2008 SCM R 865 while maintaining the conviction of accused under section 9(c) of CNS Act reduced the sentence from 14 to 7 years. Further that the Appellant being first offender has repented and therefore, we by taking lenient view while dismissing the appeal and maintaining the conviction reduce the sentence to one already undergone and remit the fine. The appellant shall be released forthwith if not required in any other custody case.