Sahib Dino alias Papoo vs The State
This criminal appeal arises from the conviction of the appellant, Sahib Dino alias Papoo, by the Special Judge for CNS, Jacobabad, for the possession of 500 grams of Charas, an offence under Section 9(b) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The trial court had sentenced the appellant to five years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 20,000, with a default clause of one additional year of simple imprisonment. Upon appeal, the appellant sought a reduction of the sentence to the period already undergone, expressing repentance. The Assistant Prosecutor General, after reviewing the jail roll, confirmed that the appellant had served six months in actual custody and had earned significant remissions totaling five years, five months, and five days, effectively satisfying the entire sentence, including the default imprisonment for non-payment of fine. The Sindh High Court, finding the conviction based on cogent reasons, upheld the conviction but declared the appeal infructuous as the sentence had been fully served. Consequently, the court ordered the cancellation of the appellant's bail bond and the discharge of the surety.
- Can an appellate court declare an appeal infructuous if the appellant has already served the entire sentence including remissions?
- Does the earning of jail remissions count toward the completion of a sentence awarded under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
- Section 9(b), Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
Abdul Maalik Gaddi, J-. Upon recovery of 500 grams of Charas, the appellant was arrested and tried by learned Special Judge for CNS, Jacobabad, for an offence under Section 9 (b) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and upon being found guilty he was convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I for five years and to pay fine of Rs.20,000/- and in case of default of payment of fine, he was ordered to suffer S.I for one year more, vide judgment dated 24.2.2006, in Special Case No.01/2005, re; State Vs. Sahab Dino alias Papoo.
2. The appellant has effected appearance before us; he 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, as according to him, as per jail roll the appellant has remained in jail for six months and he has also earned remissions for five years, five months and five days, therefore, he was of the view that as per record the sentence awarded to the appellant has already been completed by him, therefore, this appeal may be disposed of as infructuous.
4. We have thoroughly examined the record and are of the view that the conviction of the appellant is based on cogent reasons. Jail roll reflects that out of five years sentence awarded to the appellant, he has already completed his sentence including sentence against fine, as per jail roll; therefore, this appeal has become infructuous. The appellant is present on bail; his bail bond stands cancelled and surety is discharged.