Anti-Narcotic Force vs Tanveer Gul
This criminal revision petition was filed by the Anti-Narcotic Force against the judgment dated 13.08.2009 passed by the Judge Special Court (CNS), Rawalpindi, seeking enhancement of the sentence awarded to the respondent Tanveer Gul under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal question was whether the sentence of 7 years' rigorous imprisonment awarded by the trial court upon the respondent's voluntary confession of guilt called for enhancement. The Lahore High Court held that the trial court rightly accepted the voluntary confession and adopted a lenient view, considering mitigating circumstances such as the respondent being a first offender and previous non-convict. The court established that a trial court may lawfully convict and sentence an accused upon a voluntary plea of guilt without recording prosecution evidence, and a lesser punishment within the statutory discretion based on mitigating circumstances does not warrant enhancement in revision absent any legal illegality.
- Can a trial court convict an accused upon a voluntary plea of guilt without recording prosecution evidence?
- Whether a sentence of imprisonment can be enhanced in revision when the trial court has exercised its discretion based on mitigating circumstances?
- Does a confession of guilt by a first offender constitute a valid mitigating circumstance for awarding a lesser sentence under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
- Section 9(c), Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER This criminal revision is directed against the judgment dated 13.08.2009 passed by the learned Judge Special Court (CNS), Rawalpindi, whereby he convicted Tanveer Gul, accused/respondent under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and sentenced him to undergo 7 years' R.I. With fine of Rs. 4,00,000/- and in default thereof to further undergo 4 months' S.I. Benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C, was also extended to the accused/respondent in case F.I.R. No. 29, dated 17.07.2006, under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substance Act, 1997 registered at Police Station ANF, Rawalpindi. Allegation against the accused is that on 11.07.2009 at about 2:00 p.m. Respondent-accused was apprehended by ANF officials firm Shaheen Cargo Islamabad International Airport when he came there in pick-up double cabin pick-up grey in colour Registration No. NWFP/j-7041/Peshawar while possessing 6 Kgs. Of white heroin and 300 grams brown heroin concealed in the compressor of the three air- conditioners lying on the rear seat.
2. The petitioner being dissatisfied with the said judgment filed the instant revision for enhancement in sentence.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned Trial Court while awarding the sentence to the respondent has completely erred in law and failed to apply its judicious mind to the facts and circumstances of. This case; that the impugned judgment is without reasoning and the learned Trial Court while awarding the meager sentence has acted in a manner which is alien to law, hence prays for enhancement in sentence.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
5. Admittedly, the respondent confessed his guilt before the Trial Court which the Trial Count has rightly taken a lenient view, convicted and sentenced the respondent. As it is well-settled that if an accused person voluntarily pleads guilty to a charge the Trial Court can accept and act upon the same and convict him without recording the prosecution evidence. There are mitigating circumstances that the petitioner is the first offender and a previous non-convict, therefore, 7 years' R.I. Is rightly imposed upon the respondent. The provisions of Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 regarding conviction is concerned, the Trial Court has rightly passed conviction and sentence. The relevant provision of Section 9(c) is reproduced below for facility of reference::-
(a) ............. (b) ............. (c) death or imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for a term which may extend to fourteen years and shall also be liable to fine which may be upto one million rupees, if the quantity of narcotic drug psychotropic substance or controlled substance exceeds the limits specified in clause (b).
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any illegality committed by the Trial Court awarding lesser punishment. Resultantly, this revision petition having no force is dismissed in limine.