SAJID alias BABA vs THE STATE
This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court of Balochistan at Quetta, which had maintained the appellant's conviction under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, while modifying his sentence from 25 years rigorous imprisonment to imprisonment for life for the recovery of 15.450 Kilograms of Charas and 800 grams of Opium. Leave to appeal was originally granted by the Supreme Court of Pakistan to consider the quantum of sentence. The core legal question revolved around whether the conviction and sentence warranted interference and whether the delay of 600 days in filing the appeal could be condoned. The Supreme Court held that the evidence was properly appreciated by the courts below without any misreading, and since the narcotics recovered exceeded 10 kilograms, the sentence of imprisonment for life was the minimum mandatory sentence under the proviso to section 9(c) of the Act. Furthermore, the Court held that the uncorroborated plea regarding poverty of relatives was insufficient to condone a massive delay of 600 days. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as both meritless and time-barred.
- Whether the sentence of life imprisonment is the minimum mandatory sentence under the proviso to section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 when the narcotic recovery exceeds 10 kilograms?
- Whether poverty of relatives without substantiating proof constitutes a sufficient ground to condone a 600-day delay in filing an appeal?
- Whether material contradictions in evidence warrant interference with concurrent findings of fact by the courts below?
- Section 9(c), Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
' RAHMAT HUSSAIN JAFFERI, J.--- Leave to appeal was granted to consider the quantum of sentence subject to limitation of 600 days in a case in which 15.450 Kilograms of Charas and 800 grams of Opium were secured from a car bearing Registration No,F-2334, Karachi, which was driven by the appellant and intercepted by the police on 26-3-2004 at 3-00 p.m.
2. The appellant was convicted by the learned Special Judge, C.N.S, Lasbela at Hub, for offence punishable under section 9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 25 years and fine of Rs,1,00,000 or in default thereof to suffer S.I. For one year. On appeal, the learned High Court of Balochistan at Quetta maintained the conviction but modified the sentence from imprisonment of 25 years to imprisonment for life with benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. The appellant filed the petition for grant of leave, which was granted by this Court on 20-6-2009.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that there are material contradictions in the evidence and that the defence plea was not properly considered. Conversely, learned counsel appearing on behalf of P.-G. Balochistan has stated that all the points have been properly discussed by both the Courts below and they, while relying upon the prosecution evidence discarded the defence plea. He has further argued that leave to appeal was granted in respect of quantum of sentence, which in the circumstances is proper, as provided under proviso to section 9(c) of the Act.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and going through the evidence with their assistance, we find that all the points raised by the learned counsel for the appellant have been adequately addressed to by both the Courts below. There is no misreading or non-reading of the evidence on record. On the contrary the evidence was appreciated and assessed on the settled principles of law.
5. As regards the quantum of sentence, the property secured from the possession of the appellant was more than 10 Kilograms. Therefore, by virtue of proviso to section 9(c) of the Act, sentence of life imprisonment can only be awarded being minimum sentence, provided for the offence falling under the said proviso. Thus the impugned judgment does not call for any interference. However, the appeal is barred by 600 days. The appellant has filed an application for condoning the delay on the ground that he had asked his relatives to file the appeal from outside, but they did not do so because of poor monetary position, therefore, when he came to know that no appeal was filed then he has filed the appeal. No proof whatsoever has been filed to substantiate his plea as such he has failed to prove his plea. The ground is insufficient to condone the delay. Hence, the appeal is time barred.
6. Consequently, the appeal has no merits and time barred, therefore, the same is dismissed.