GHULAM MUHAMMAD vs The STATE
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Special Court convicting the appellant under section 9(b) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 for the recovery of 110 grams of charas and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for one year with a fine. The core legal question was whether the conviction could be sustained under section 9(b) when only 10 grams out of the recovered quantity was sent for chemical examination, and whether the sentence could be reduced to the period already undergone upon request. The court held that since only 10 grams of charas was sent for chemical examination and represented the proven recovery, the conviction should be altered from section 9(b) to section 9(a) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. Considering the appellant's advanced age, lack of previous convictions, and the duration of the appeal, the court maintained the modified conviction but reduced the sentence to the period already undergone, subject to a fine. The key principle laid down is that chemical analysis of only a portion of a narcotic substance limits the conviction to the quantity verified by the sample.
- Whether an accused can be convicted for the entire bulk of recovered narcotics when only a sample has been sent for chemical examination?
- Can the appellate court reduce a sentence to the period already undergone based on the request of the appellant and mitigating circumstances?
- Does a sample drawn for chemical examination represent the recovery only to the extent of its own measured quantity?
- Section 9(b), Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997
- Section 9(a), Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997
1. ' SHAUKAT ALI MEMON, J.---Upon recovery of 110 grams of Charas, the appellant was arrested in Crime No,30/2005, Police Station Pangrio, under section 9(b) of C.N.S Act, 1997 and was challaned before Special Judge Narcotic Badin. The Special Court after regular trial convicted the appellant for the stated offence in Special Case No,101 of 2005 and sentenced him to undergo R.I for one year and to pay fine of Rs,10,000 and in default thereof to suffer R.I. For one month more.
2. The appellant as well as his counsel at the very outset stated that in case this Court, while maintaining the conviction, if reduces the sentence to one already undergone, the appellant would not press the instant appeal.
3. ' We with the assistance of learned counsel for the appellant and Deputy Prosecutor-General Sindh have scrutinized the record and have found out that 110 grams of charas in the shape of small and big pieces was recovered from the possession of appellant, out of which only 10 grams of Charas was sent for chemical examination. Nowhere it is mentioned that sample for chemical examination was drawn from each and every piece of Charas, recovered from the possession of the appellant enabling the Court to fix the quantity represented by such sample. Anyhow, the sample drawn for chemical examination represents the recovery only to the extent of 10 grams. We are guided by the judgment of apex court in Ameer Zeb's case (PLD 2012 SC 380) and are of the view that the appellant could not have been convicted for an offence under section 9(b) but under section 9(a) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 for the quantity of charas which was sent for chemical examination. We have further seen the jail roll and have found that the appellant has served out the sentence for approximately four months and 18 days including remission. Though the punishment fixed for the recovery of Charas upto 30 grams as prescribed in Ghulam Murtaza's case reported as PLD 2009 Lahore 362, which was upheld by the apex Court in the case of Ameer Zeb (Supra), is R.I. For & months and fine of Rs,3000/or in default S.I. For 2 months, but looking to the age of the appellant, who is more than 60 years of age with no previous conviction record and has undergone agony of the pendency of the-appeal since 2006, we feel no hesitation to accede the request of the appellant to the extent of reducing the sentence to one already undergone.
4. ' Learned Deputy Prosecutor General Sindh has also recorded no objection in view of reported case-law.
5. ' For the foregoing reasons, we while dismissing this appeal and maintaining conviction, reduce the sentence awarded to the appellant to one already undergone, however, subject to payment of fine of Rs,2000 and in default thereof he shall undergo S.I. For one month. He is on bail. His bail bond is cancelled and, surety discharged.
6. ' Let a copy of this judgment be communicated to the Superintendent, Central Prison, - Hyderabad for his record.
7. Sentence reduced.
Cited by 3 cases
- 1- Amjad Ali s/o Abdul Qayoom 2- Bahawal @ Sajjad s/o Ghulam Rasool vs 2016 SHC 55
- AMJAD ALI vs The STATE 2017 Y LR 594
- AMJAD ALI Versus State 2017 YLR 594