Muhammad Sardar vs The State
This criminal appeal was filed by the appellant challenging his conviction and sentence under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Burewala, which sentenced him to ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine for the recovery of 2500 grams of Charas. At the outset of the hearing, the appellant's counsel did not contest the conviction on merits but prayed for a reduction of the sentence to the period already undergone. The High Court, noting that the appellant had served a substantial portion of his sentence (amounting to over four years including remissions) and had no prior criminal record, determined that the ends of justice would be met by reducing the sentence. Consequently, the Court maintained the conviction but reduced the sentence of imprisonment to the period already served, while also reducing the fine amount from twenty thousand rupees to ten thousand rupees.
- Whether a court can reduce the sentence of an offender convicted under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 to the period already undergone if the conviction is not contested on merits?
- What factors should the court consider when deciding whether to reduce a custodial sentence in a narcotics possession case?
- Does the absence of a prior criminal record constitute a valid mitigating factor for the reduction of a sentence under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
- Section 9(c), Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
' CH. MUSHTAQ AHMAD, J. --- Appellant Muhammad Sardar has challenged his conviction and sentence through the above-cited Criminal Appeal No. 1202 of 2010. He was tried by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Burewala, District Vehari in case F.I.R. No. 54, dated 9.2.2010 registered under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 at Police Station Gaggo for the recovery of 2500 grams Charas from his possession.
2. After conclusion of the trial learned Additional Sessions Judge, Burewala vide his judgment dated 22.10.2010 convicted the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, P.P.C. and sentenced to undergo 10 years' R.I. with fine of Rs. 20000/-and in case of default of payment thereof to undergo further simple imprisonment for six months. Benefit of Section 382 B, Cr.P.C. was, however, extended to the appellant. Being aggrieved by that judgment appellant preferred this appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant at the outset of hearing submitted that he would not press this appeal on merits and prayed for reduction of the sentence to the period already undergone. On the other hand learned Deputy Prosecutor General has opposed this appeal on the ground that huge quantity of contraband material was recovered from the appellant and that the prosecution has proved the charged through consistent and confidence inspiring evidence.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has not challenged the conviction and sentence of appellant on merits rather contended for reduction of sentence to the period already undergone. As per record petitioner remained behind the bars from the date of arrest i.e. 9.2.2010 till the date of passing of impugned judgment on 22.10.2010 which comes to about seven months and after his conviction 11/2 month more had elapsed when he was released on bail by suspending his sentence by this Court vide order dated 1.12.2011. If report submitted by Superintendent, New Central Jail, Multan on 17.10.2011 is taken into consideration alongwith remissions so far earned by him, the total period of sentence would come to four years and three months and this shows that he has to serve half of the sentence. There is nothing on record to show that he was previously convicted. In the circumstances, while maintaining the conviction of the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 we feel it appropriate to reduce the sentence from 10 years' R.I. to the period already served out by Sardar, appellant-convict which in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case would be sufficient to meet the ends of justice. The amount of fine is also reduced from Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- and in lieu of non-payment thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.
6. With the above modification the instant appeal is dismissed. The appellant is on bail. He is directed to deposit the amount of fine within 30-days from the date of passing of this judgment, otherwise he shall be taken into custody and sent to jail to serve out the sentence in lieu of fine.
However, surety bonds shall be released after payment of fine or on having undergone imprisonment in lieu of fine by the appellant. A copy of this judgment be sent to learned Trial Court for information. Sentence reduced.