NAJEEBULLAH vs The STATE

1. ABDULLAH BALOCH, J.---This Criminal Appeal No,50 of 2017 has been preferred by the appellant Najeebullah Son of Jalal-ud-Din, assailing the judgement dated 13th March 2017 (hereinafter referred as, "the impugned judgment"), passed by the Chairman Drugs Court Balochistan Quetta (hereafter referred as, "the trial Court"), whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 23(1)

(c) of the Drugs Act, 1976 and sentenced to suffer two months' R.I. with fine of Rs,50,000/- or in default thereof to further suffer one month S.I.

2. 2.Facts of the case are that the complainant Sarwar Khan Kakar, Drug Inspector Qetta Zone-J, filed a complaint No,DI-J-09/2015 against the appellant before the learned trial Court under Sections 23(1)(c) read with section 27 of the Drugs Act, 1976 and 34, P.P.C., stating therein that on 5th August 2015 at 12.40 p.m. he along with Steno typist Azizullah during routine inspection, visited and seized Messrs Al-Saif Medical Store, Abdul Qudoos Road Pashtoonabad Quetta, which was being run without Drug Sale License by the appellant Najeebullah Son of Haji Jamal-ud-Din. Hence, the complainant took the samples of Femme Tablets 40mg, Batch No,3566, Zyrtec Tab 10mg, Batch No,4369 and Glucophage Table 500 mg, Batch No,G 4910, manufactures by Batala [pharmaceuticals 23/B, Small Industrial Estate No,2, Gujranwala, Pakistan, AGP (Pvt.) Ltd. B-23 Site Karachi and Merck (Pvt.) Ltd. 7-Jail Road, Quetta. It is further averred in the complaint that on 6th August 2015 Show-Cause Notice was issued to the appellant, but the same was not replied, hence the information report alongwith complete documents were sent to Provincial Control Board Quetta and after grant of prosecution sanction the complaint has been filed before the trial Court.

3. 3.On receipt of complaint, the case was registered and was fixed for framing of charge on 9th March 2017, hence on the said date charge was framed and read over to the appellant, who pleaded his guilt, thus after codel formalities, the trial Court vide impugned judgment dated 13th March 2017 convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above, whereafter instant appeal has been filed.

4. 5.Learned counsel for the appellant while advancing his arguments contended that the appellant is a tender-age of 17-years and also is a student, thus being juvenile and student, his further detention in jail along with other hardened criminals is harmful for his future; that since the recovered drugs/medicines are not forged/sub-standard or foreign origin, thus lenient view was required to be taken, but the learned trial Court has treated harshly to the appellant, hence the impugned judgment with regard to quantum of sentence requires interfere of this Court.

5. 6.Learned Deputy Prosecutor General while supporting the conviction argued that the trial Court has already taken a lenient view; that the appellant is no more entitled for any further leniency.

7. Heard the learned counsel and perused the available record. As per the prosecution story the complainant during routine inspection, visited and seized Messrs Al-Saif Medical Store, Abdul Qudoos Road Pashtoonabad Quetta, which was being run without Drug Sale License by the appellant Najeebullah Son of Haji Jalal-ud-Din. The appellant at the time of framing charge pleaded his guilt and placed him at the mercy of trial Court and the trial Court vide impugned judgment has awarded conviction for two months and on the said date the appellant was taken into custody and remained in jail till his release on bail by this Court i.e. 17th March 2017. The trial Court has already taken a lenient view into the matter by awarding lesser punishment to the appellant. By virtue of provision of Section 412, Cr.P.C. accused who pleaded guilty to the charge had no right of appeal against his conviction, but could maintain an appeal only to the extent ,of the legality of the sentence passed against him being harsh by the trial Court, However, the fact remains before us is that the appellant is a juvenile and also a student coupled with the fact that being juvenile he suffered the anguish of criminal trial before the trial Court and also remained jail for few days. The appellant voluntarily confessed his guilt and placed him at the mercy of the Court. In that eventuality, he would become a friend of the Court and the Court always took lenient view in respect of his sentence. Besides, the recovered drugs/medicines are not foreign made, forged or substandard, thus keeping in view the overall impact of the case and particularly the age of the appellant being juvenile and student, the sentence of the appellant for two months is reduced to that of already undergone, while the remaining sentences of fine amount or the sentence in default thereof shall remain intact.

6. With the above modification in the quantum of sentence, the appeal stands dismissed.