KHALID SALEEM alias CHITTA vs STATE
This matter arises from a criminal petition seeking the suspension of sentence and release on bail pending appeal filed by Khalid Saleem alias Chitta, who was convicted under Section 9(b) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and sentenced to two years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine, after the trial court did not believe the prosecution case of possession of 1130 grams of charas under Section 9(c). The core legal question is whether the petitioner's sentence should be suspended during the pendency of his appeal given the duration of his incarceration and the nature of the conviction. The Lahore High Court held that since the petitioner had been behind bars since his arrest and his continued incarceration would serve little purpose, the application should be allowed. The court laid down the principle that post-conviction suspension of sentence may be granted when the accused has already undergone a significant portion of the sentence and the prosecution's primary higher charge was disbelieved by the trial court.
- Whether a convicted person's sentence can be suspended during the pendency of an appeal when the trial court has convicted him under a lesser provision than originally charged?
- Does continued incarceration pending appeal justify the suspension of sentence under narcotics laws?
- What are the considerations for granting bail and suspending a sentence after conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
- Section 9(b), Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 9(c), Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
ORDER
1. ' The prosecution case that the petitioner possessed contraband charas weighing 1130 grams at the time of his arrest on 20.2.2014, has not been believed as such by the learned trial Court, which fact is evident from judgment dated 2.7.2014 passed by it, in terms that the petitioner was guilty under Section 9(b) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. He was handed down sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs,50,000/- and in default, he was directed to undergo another six months SI. The prosecution failed to establish its case under Section 9(c) of the Act (ibid) against the accused during the course of the trial. He is behind the bars since 22.2.2014 and his continued incarceration may do little good to the prosecution case. Therefore, this application is allowed, the sentence of the petitioner is suspended and he shall be released from the prison subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,5,00,000/- (five lacs) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. He shall personally appear on each and every date of hearing of the main appeal (Crl. A. No, 1629/2014).
2. (A.S) .