Pakistan Case Law
2022 PSC (Crl.) 314

Shereen Zada Khan vs The State, etc

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation2022 PSC (Crl.) 314
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Criminal Appeal No. 90-L of 2012
Date2019-05-20
Judge(s)Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Manzoor Ahmad
ResultAppeal dismissed
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

The matter arises from a criminal appeal filed by Shereen Zada Khan against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had partly accepted his appeal, set aside his death sentence under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and instead convicted him under Section 9(b) of the same Act, sentencing him to seven years of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine, while maintaining his conviction under Section 17. The core legal question involved whether the appellant was rightly convicted and sentenced under Section 9(b) after the destruction of the case property without notice led to the setting aside of his initial Section 9(c) conviction, and whether the sentence warranted any further reduction. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the appeal was without merit and dismissed it, noting that the appellant had already served out his entire sentence and the impugned judgment of the High Court was not open to exception. The key principle laid down is that where a conviction remains in the field and the appellant has already served the substantive sentence, no purpose is served by further reducing the sentence.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Whether the conviction under Section 9(b) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 is sustainable when the case property was destroyed without notice to the accused?
  • Does any purpose lie in reducing a sentence where the appellant has already served out his entire substantive sentence?
  • Can a conviction and sentence under Section 17 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 be maintained if it was not questioned during arguments before the appellate court?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Section 9(c), Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997
  • Section 15, Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997
  • Section 17, Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997
  • Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
  • Section 9(b), Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997
  • Section 9(a), Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997
narcotic substancesdeath sentence not confirmedreduction of sentencedestruction of case propertycriminal appealheroin recovery

JUDGM ENT

M ANZOOR AHM AD M ALIK, J. Shereen Zada Khan (appellant) alongwith his co-accused was indicted by the learned Judge Special Court Control of Narcotic Substances Lahore in case FIR No 16/2011 dated 20.06.2001 offence under Sections 9 (c), 15 and 17 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 registered at Police Station Anti-Narcotic Force Lahore. After regular trial, he was convicted under Section 9(c)/15 CNSA, 1.997 and sentenced to death. He was also directed to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000,000/- (rupees one million) and in default of payment of fine he had to serve simple imprisonment for one year He was also convicted under Section 17, CNSA, 1997 and sentenced to three years R.I. Two co-accused of the appellant namely Taji Wali and Muhammad Waseem Hashmi were also convicted and sentenced under Section 9(c) of CNSA, 1997 and sentenced to ten years' R.I. They were also directed to pay' fine of Rs. 200,000/- (rupees two hundred thousand only) each and in default of payment of fine, they had to serve simple imprisonment for one year each Both of them were extended the benefit of Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure. Aggrieved of his conviction and sentence Shereen Zada Khan (appellant) and his co-accused Taj Wali Khan filed joint Crl Appeal No. 845 of 2005 which was heard alongwith CSR No. 04 of 2005 and through the impugned judgment, the learned Division Bench of Lahore High Court accepted the appeal partly to the extent of the present appellant and his conviction and sentence under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act; 1997 was set aside.

However, he was convicted under Section 9(b) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years. He was also ordered to pay fine to the tune of Rs. 500,000/- (rupees five hundred thousand only) and in default of payment of tine he had to further undergo one year's simple imprisonment. Conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 17 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, which was riot questioned before the learned appellate Court during the course of arguments was also maintained. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Capital Sentences was answered in the negative and the sentence of death awarded to Shereen Zada Khan (appellant) was not confirmed. Against the judgment of learned appellate court Shereen Zada Khan preferred Crl. Petition No. 303-L of 2012 wherein leave was granted by this Court vide order dated 16.05.2012. Hence this appeal with the leave of the Court.

2. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Special Prosecutor ANF at a considerable length and with their able assistance have also gone through the relevant record.

3. Appellant alongwith his co-accused was apprehended in a vehicle from the parking of Jinnah Hospital Lahore with 53 kilograms of heroin. Samples from the recovered contraband were sent to the Chemical Examiner and report of Chemical Examiner (Exh.PW) is in the positive. In order to prove guilt of the appellant as many as twelve witnesses were produced by the prosecution. All these witnesses remained consistent on material aspects of the case during their cross- examination. The appellant was Ultimately convicted and sentenced under section 9(c), CNSA mainly on the ground that the case property was destroyed without notice to the appellant. A lenient view has already been taken in favour of the appellant. In the circumstances of the case the impugned judgment of the learned Lahore High Court is not open to any exception by this Court.

4. There is another aspect of the case. The appellant was also convicted and sentenced under Section 17 of the CNSA, 1997 by the learned trial Court. During the course of arguments before the learned appellate court, conviction and sentence of the appellant under afore-noted penal head was not questioned which was maintained.

5. Contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that case, against the appellant is covered under Section 9(a), CNSA and not under Section 9(b) CNSA does not hold much water because even in that eventuality conviction of appellant will remain in field and no purpose would be served by reducing his sentence because the appellant has already served out his entire sentence.

7. Nutshell of the above discussion is that the instant appeal is without any merit, which stands dismissed accordingly.

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.