Ehsan Ullah vs State
This criminal appeal arises from the conviction and sentencing of the appellant, Ehsan Ullah, by the trial court for the possession of 5 kilograms of Charas under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The appellant was originally sentenced to seven years and six months of rigorous imprisonment, along with a fine. During the appellate proceedings, the appellant did not challenge the conviction itself but sought a reduction in the sentence, citing remorse and repentance. The Special Public Prosecutor did not oppose this request. Upon reappraisal of the evidence, the Court upheld the conviction under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. However, considering the peculiar circumstances of the case, the appellant's expression of remorse, and the agony of the trial already faced, the Court exercised its discretion to reduce the sentence from seven years and six months to five years and five months of rigorous imprisonment. The fine was maintained, though the sentence in default was reduced, and the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 was extended.
- Can an appellate court reduce a sentence for a narcotics conviction if the appellant expresses remorse and the prosecution does not oppose the reduction?
- Is the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applicable to sentences imposed 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
Sadiq Mahmud Khurram, J.--Appellant (Ehsan Ullah) has been tried by the learned trial Court in case FIR No. 41 dated 16.06.2016, under Section 9(c) of CNSA, 1997 (Charas Garda 5 kilograms) Police Station ANF Attock, and was convicted and sentence, vide impugned judgment dated 05.1 1.2019 as under: Ehsan Ullah appellant Sentenced to 7-years and 6-months R.I. alongwith fine of Rs. 35,000/- and in default whereof to further undergo 6- months and 15-days S.I. Benefit of Section 382-B, Cr .P.C. was extended to him.
2. Heard. Record perused.
3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellant does not press the convi ction of the appellant in offence under Section 9(c) of CNSA, 1997 and has requested for reduction of his sentence on the ground that the appellant has expressed remorse and repentance with an assurance not to deal with narcotics in future. Learned Special Public Prosecutor has no objection on the reduction of the sentence of the appellant. On our reappraisal of evidence, we are of the view that appella nt has rightly been convicted by the learned trial Court in offence under Section 9(c) CNSA, 1997. Coming to the reduction of sentence of appellant, considering the peculiar circumstances of this case discussed above, statement of the learned Special Public Prosecutor and agony of trial faced by the appellant while maintaining the conviction of the appellant under Section 9(c) of CNSA, 1997, his sentence is reduced from 7-years and 6-months R.I. to 5-years and 5-months R.I. Fine of Rs. 35,000/- is maintained, however , sentence in default whereof is reduced to 1-month S.I. Benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C. is extended to him. Reliance is place on case titled "State through Deputy Director (Law) Regional Directorate, Anti-Narcotics Force vs. Mujahid Naseem Lodhi " (PLJ 2017 SC 660 ).
4. With the above said modification in the impugned judgment; this criminal appeal is disposed of.