The STATE vs MUZAFAR SHAH
These criminal revision petitions were filed under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by the State against conviction orders passed by the trial court, seeking enhancement of sentences awarded to the respondents under section 9(B) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997. The core legal question was whether the trial court erred in awarding a lesser punishment (imprisonment already undergone) upon the voluntary confession of guilt by the convicts from whom contraband charas was recovered. The Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court held that the trial court committed no illegality or material irregularity, noting that when an accused voluntarily pleads guilty and throws himself at the mercy of the court, a lenient view in sentencing is properly taken. The court laid down the principle that revisional jurisdiction will not be exercised to interfere with a lenient sentence lawfully and judiciously awarded by the trial court upon a voluntary plea of guilt, and consequently dismissed the petitions in limine.
- Whether the High Court can enhance a sentence in revision where the trial court awarded a lesser punishment upon a voluntary plea of guilty?
- Does a court commit a material irregularity by taking a lenient view in sentencing when an accused confesses guilt and places himself at the mercy of the court?
- Can the revisional jurisdiction under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be invoked to interfere with a lawful sentence based on a voluntary confession?
- Section 439, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 9(B), Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
ORDER
ALI BAIG, J.---These criminal revision petitions have been preferred under section 439, Cr.P.C. against the impugned conviction orders dated 27.06.2018 and 09.06.2018 passed by the learned Sessions Judge/Special Judge CNSA, whereby the learned trial Court has awarded lesser punishment instead of full sentence to the convicts/respondents.
2. Succinctly facts giving rise to the filling of these revision petitions are that the convicts/respondents were booked for the offences under section 9(B) Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 vide FIR No. 94/2017 and FIR No.128/2017 as some contraband chards was recovered from the possession of the present respondents/ convicts.
3. After registration of formal FIR against the present respondents/convicts and completion of usual investigation separate challanagainstthe respondents/convicts were submitted in the learned trial Court. During course of trial the respondents/convicts pleaded guilty voluntarily and the learned trial Court has convicted both the accused/ respondents under section 9(B) CNSA, 1997 and sentenced to imprisonment for a period which the convicts had already undergone with a fine of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.5000/- respectively.
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned orders dated 27.06.2018 and 09-06-2018, passed by the learned trial Court the learned Dy. Advocate General has preferred these two revision petitions in this Court.
5. Through this single order we intend to dispose of two revision petitions bearing No. Cr. Revision petitions Nos.17/2018 and 133/2018 as common question of law and facts are involved in both the revision petitions.
6. The learned Dy. Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State contended that sentence provided for the offence under section 9(B) Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 is imprisonment which may be extended to seven years and shall also be liable to fine but the learned trial Court/Special Judge CNSA Gilgit has awarded lesser punishment to the convicts/ respondents which may be enhanced in the interest of justice.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the State and perused the record with his able assistance.
9. From perusal of record it transpires that meagre quantity of 810 grams charas was recovered from the convict/respondent namely Muzfar Shah and total 828 grams chars was recovered from the possession of convict/ respondent namely Sajid Ali son of Akbar Ali. Moreover, the convicts/respondents have voluntarily confessed their guilt and have placed themselves at the mercy of the learned trial Court as such the learned trial court has rightly awarded lesser punishment to the convicts/respondents as it is a common practice that once a person who is involved in criminal case wants to plead guilty to the charge levelled against him and place himself at the mercy of the Court, and in that eventuality he become a friend of the court and the court always takes lenient view in respect of his sentence. Hence the learned trial Court has not committed any illegality or martial irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction vested in it. Our this view is fortified by the view expressed by the Honorable Division Bench of Peshawar High Court in a reported judgment PLD 2013 Peshawar 35.
10.The learned trial Court has passed the impugned orders which are strictly in accordance with law, justice and equity which cannot be interfered with by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under section 439 Cr . P.0 .
9. For what has been discussed above, we find no merit in these criminal revisions which are dismissed in-limine. File.