Naseem Khan vs The State
This criminal petition arises from the conviction of the petitioner for the possession of 3 kilograms of cannabis, initially sentenced to three years of rigorous imprisonment under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The petitioner challenged the conviction and sentence, primarily arguing that while the prosecution claimed to have seized three separate packets, the forensic report only analyzed a single 5-gram sample, failing to establish the narcotic nature of the entire quantity. Additionally, the petitioner sought leniency based on his youth and lack of prior criminal history. The Supreme Court observed that the prosecution's reliance on a single consolidated sample, rather than separate samples from each packet, necessitated a re-evaluation of the conviction under the relevant statutory provisions. Consequently, the Court converted the petition into an appeal and partly allowed it, reducing the sentence to the period already undergone and modifying the fine. The judgment establishes that the purpose of criminal justice is not vengeance but reformation, and procedural lapses in forensic sampling for narcotics require a more lenient sentencing approach.
- Does the failure to analyze separate samples from multiple seized packets of narcotics warrant a reduction in sentence?
- Is the purpose of criminal justice to wreak vengeance or to provide an opportunity for the offender to reform?
- Can a conviction under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 be mitigated to Section 9(b) due to forensic sampling deficiencies?
- Section 9(c), Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 9(b), Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
ORDER
Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J. Riding on a bike, the petitioner was surprised by a contingent of Crime Investigation Agency Pashin with 3-k.g. of cannabis, wrapped in three separate packets, concealed beneath the driving seat, on 7.9.2002; along with the contraband, he was handed over to the local police; a learned Additional Sessions Judge at Pashin, returned him a guilty verdict; convicted under clause (c) of section 9 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, he was sentenced to 3-years R.I. with a direction to pay fine, pre-trial period inclusive, upheld by the High Court of Balochistan vide impugned judgment dated 31.12.2020, vires whereof, are being assailed primarily on the ground that notwithstanding, prosecution' s case that the raiding party secured sample from each packet, the forensic report relied upon by the prosecution purports a forensic analysis from one sample of 5 grams to confirm the narcotic character of the contraband. It is additionally argued that the petitioner , an errant youth in his first misadventure, deserves in circumstances a benevolent opportunity to reform himself so as to rehabilitate in mainstream life to become a useful member of the society , a possibility obstructed by his continuous stay in prison.
2. Heard. Record perused.
3. Though not specifically pleaded, the petitioner figures somewhat in the adolescent interregnum with no past history to his discredit; prosecution' s claim of possession of 3 k.g. of cannabis notwithstanding, the forensic report unambiguously refers to receipt of single sample of 5 grams.
Purpose of administration of criminal justice is to ensure that majesty of law reigns supreme with peace and equilibrium in the society , it is not designed to wreak vengeance; it must provide opportunity to the errant to possibly reform himself so as to rejoin mainstream life as a useful member thereof. Prosecution' s reliance upon a single consolidated sample instead of dispatching three separate samples from each bag brings petitioner 's case within the purview of clause (b) of the section ibid and, thus, a corresponding reduc tion in his sentence is an option most conscionable in circumstances. Consequently , petitioner 's sentence is reduced to already undergone by him with reduction in fine to Rs.5000/- or to undergo two months SI in the event of default. Petition is converted into appeal and partly allowed.
Cited by 3 cases
- The State, Aftab and five others vs Aftab, The State and another 2025 LHC 1963
- Allah Wadhaya vs The State 2025 YLR 367
- Rashid Mehmood vs The State 2022 IHC 222, 2024 PCRLJ 300