Jan Muhammad Solangi vs The State
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Special Judge for CNS, Larkana, which convicted the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, sentencing him to six years and six months of rigorous imprisonment with a fine. The core legal question was whether the sentence imposed was excessive given the appellant's age, his repentance, the duration of his incarceration as an under-trial prisoner, and the protracted nature of the trial. The Court maintained the conviction, finding it based on cogent evidence, but exercised its discretion to reduce the substantive sentence to the period already undergone by the appellant. The key principle laid down is that while maintaining a conviction for a narcotics offense, an appellate court may reduce a sentence to the period already served when the appellant has demonstrated genuine repentance, has served a significant portion of the sentence, and has endured the agony of a protracted trial, thereby satisfying the ends of justice.
- Can an appellate court reduce a sentence to the period already undergone while maintaining the conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
- Does the agony of a protracted trial constitute a valid ground for the reduction of a sentence in a narcotics case?
- Section 9(c), Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
Abdul Maalik Gaddi, J-. Through this appeal, the appellant has assailed the legality and propriety of judgment dated 29.08.2009, passed by the Special Judge for CNS, Larkana in Special Narcotic Case No.01/2007, re; The State Vs. Jan Muhammad Solangi, arising out of Crime No.92/2006, Police Station Bakrani, whereby the learned trial Court after conclusion of trial convicted the appellant under Section 9 (c) CNS Act, 1997, and sentenced him to suffer R.I for six years, and six months with fine of Rs.30,000/-; in case of default in payment of fine, the appellant shall further undergo S.I for six months. The benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C was also extended in favour of the appellant.
2. Today, this appeal is fixed for arguments. The appellant has effected appearance before us; he appears to be aged about 75 years and has repented for the act, he has committed and assures/undertakes that he will never repeat such an act. He prays that the sentence may be reduced to one, already undergone by him.
3. Learned A.P.G. has no objection, if this Court while maintaining conviction reduce the sentence to one already undergone.
4. We have thoroughly examined the record and are of the view that the conviction of the appellant is based on cogent reasons. Perused the case file, which indicates that the appellant was arrested on 21.12.2006, and he was convicted on 29.08.2009, as such during trial he remained in jail for a period of two years, eight months and eight days as (under trial prisoner). Then the appellant filed instant appeal and his sentence was suspended vide Order dated 30.10.2009, as such it further appears that he further remained in jail for fifteen days more, therefore, he remained in jail for about three years and this fact has been conceded by the learned A.P.G. It further appears from the record that the appellant has served out major portion of his sentence. Furthermore, the appellant was prosecuted in the year 2006, and he had to undergone agony of protracted trial for, as many as eight years, and therefore, the ends of justice will be amply met, if substantive sentence is reduced from six years and six months to one, already undergone by the appellant.
5. As observed above, the appellant has repented and undertaken not to repeat such a heinous act. Consequently, we while taking lenient view dismiss the appeal, while maintaining the conviction, but reduce the sentence to one, already undergone and remit the fine. The appellant is present on bail, his bail stands cancelled and surety is discharged.