Shahid Hussain vs The State
This criminal jail appeal is directed against the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 9(b) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 for possession of contraband charas and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for one year with a fine. The core legal question concerns the quantum of sentence and whether leniency should be extended to a first-time offender who does not contest the conviction but seeks reduction of sentence to the period already undergone. The court held that considering the appellant is a young first offender, has shown remorse, and has already served a substantial portion of his sentence along with remissions, he is entitled to leniency. The appeal against conviction was dismissed as not pressed, but the substantive sentence was reduced to the period already undergone and the fine was remitted in its entirety, following established precedents.
- Whether the sentence of a first offender convicted under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act can be reduced to the period already undergone?
- Can an appellate court remit the fine imposed upon a convict upon considering mitigating circumstances?
- Whether an appellant who does not press the appeal against conviction can be granted leniency regarding the sentence?
- Section 9(b), Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
KHADIM HUSSAIN M. SHAIKH, J- Appellant Shahid Hussain through this Criminal Jail Appeal No.11 of 2009 has called in question the judgment dated 28.01.2009 passed by learned Court of Sessions Judge/Special Judge CNSA, Ghotki in Special Case No.13/2008 re-State v Shahid Hussain, based upon Crime No.03/2008 registered at Police Station, Excise Ghotki on 13.05.2008, for offence under Section 9(b) of CNS Act, 1997, whereby the appellant was convicted u/s 9(b) of the Act ibid and was sentenced to suffer R.I for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine was further to undergo R.I for three months more. He was, however, given benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellant was charged for having found in possession of 200 grams of contraband charas and he was sent-up to stand his trial.
3. Formal charge under section 9(b) CNS Act, 1997, was framed against the appellant to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. Upon the trial, the appellant was found guilty u/s 9(b) of CNS Act, 1997 and was convicted and sentenced vide judgment dated 28.01.2009, passed by the learned Court of Sessions Judge/Special Judge CNS, Ghotki as discussed in para-1 (supra).
5. Appellant being aggrieved by the said judgment dated 28.01.2009 has filed the present criminal jail appeal through Superintendent Central Prison-I, Sukkur.
6. The appellant, who is present in person, at the very out-set, not disputing the conviction and does not press this appeal and submits that the sentence awarded to him, may be reduced to that already undergone and the fine may also be remitted, per him, he is unable to pay the amount of fine. He further submits that he has remained in jail for more than six months inclusive the remission extended to him. He further submits that he is first offender and has responsibility towards his family and due to his detention his family members have been badly affected mentally and financially, that he having learnt a lesson has improved himself by realizing his mistake and that he undertakes not to repeat such an offence in future as he wants to reform and rehabilitate himself as respectable citizen.
7. The learned SPP appearing on behalf of the State concedes that the sentence awarded by learned trial Court to the appellant may be reduced to already undergone and fine may be remitted.
8. We have heard the appellant in person, who has been produced in custody and have perused the jail roll.
9. Perusal of the record reveals that the appellant has remained in Jail for more than 8 months four days with UTP period and remission. The appellant is stated to be a first offender and he is a young man aged about 21 years, has shown his remorse and penitence as convict and since he has served substantive sentence of more than 8 months including the remission, the appellant therefore, deserves leniency.
10. Following the dictum laid down by apex Court in the cases of Muhammad Hashim v The State (PLD 2004 SC 856 and Amanat Ali v The State (2008 SCM R 991), we while dismissing the appeal as not pressed reduce the sentence of the appellant from one year to that he has already undergone and also remit the fine of Rs.1000/- in its entirety.
11. The appellant Shahid Hussain Channo is in custody, he shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case.
12. With the above observations, the appeal stands dismissed.