NIAZ AKHTAR vs THE STATE and others

ORDER

Petitioner Niaz Akhtar has filed this petition under section 426, Cr.P.C. Seeking suspension of his sentence awarded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge CNSA, Rawalpindi vide judgment dated 22-6-2010. He was convicted under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and sentenced to imprisonment for life with the fine of Rs,200,000 and in default thereof, to further undergo simple imprisonment for one year.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence available on record as the prosecution evidence is full .Of contradictions; that the petitioner was arrested in this case on 3-5-2010 and the impugned judgment was passed on 22-6-2010; that delay in the decision of the appeal cannot be attributed to the petitioner and that there is no likelihood of hearing of the appeal of the petitioner in near future and the statutory right of suspension of sentence and release on bail till the decision of appeal has also matured during the, pendency of this petition, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the suspension of his sentence even on statutory ground as well.

3. On the other band learned PPPD has opposed this petition on the ground that the petitioner is a desperate and hardened criminal and he has committed the offence against the society; that the deeper appreciation of evidence is not called for at this stage and that there is no illegality or material irregularity in the impugned judgment, therefore, sentence of the petitioner cannot be suspended at this early stage.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned PPPD for the State and have perused the record.

5 . The learned trial Court after concluding that the recovery of 25-kg. Of charas stood proved against the convict/appellant and sentenced him to imprisonment for life and also to pay fine of Rs,200,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for one year with the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Now the question arises that whether a person who is involved in the offences governed by the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 can be termed as dangerous criminal and whether he can avail the benefit of section 426(1-A)(c) Cr.P.C. There is a visible distinction among the offences like theft, robber, dacoit, murderous assault and murder which are committed against the individuals and the offences like selling of narcotic substances, which directly affect that moral and social fabric of the society and have got the potential of destroying the health and family life of large number of the people in addition to bringing bad name to the country. Heroin/charas and such like other substances were declared dangerous drugs in the year 1930 basically on account of their having dangerous effects on health and on the society as a whole. In case titled "Muhammad Asghar v.The State (1992 M LD 1554)", this Court has already declared that a person dealing in large quantity of heroin could safely be termed as dangerous criminal and while holding so, accused despite expiry of statutory period, was declined bail.

6. A full Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in case titled "The State through Deputy Director Anti-Narcotics Force, Karachi v. Mobin Khan (2000 SCM R 299)" has held that third proviso to subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C., cannot be pressed into service in view of subsection (1) of section 51 read with Clauses (B) and (C) of section 9 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, in a case in which the quantity of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substance or controlled substance exceeds one kilogram and which may entail, inter alia, death sentence.

7. The petitioner was found in possession of 25-kilograms of charas. He seems to be involved in drug trafficking at large scale. He has committed an offence which has a direct impact on the public at large, especially the young generation of this country. The drug peddler is so dangerous that he chooses the business of drug trafficking as a source of his income knowingly not only that the said business is prohibited by law but also that the same is against the injunctions of Islam ordained in the Holy Quran and Sunnah of the Holy Prophet (PBUH). A person dealing in narcotics is so callous that just for gaining huge monetary benefit in an easy way and in a short period of time, he spreads dangerous drugs for consumption of innocent citizens, even with whom he has no personal grudge or enmity. The tendency of adopting drug trafficking is at its peak now a days and requires to be dealt with iron hands in order to save the innocent persons to be the victim thereof.

In these circumstances, we hold that the case of the present petitioner falls within the ambit of Proviso to subsection (1-A)(C) of section 426, Cr.P.C., as such he is not entitled to the suspension of is sentence.

In view of above, the petition in hand is without any merits, the same stands dismissed.