KHADIM HUSSAIN Versus THE STATE
This criminal appeal was directed against the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Bahawalnagar, which convicted the appellant, Khadim Hussain, under Article 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979 for the possession of 15 grams of heroin. The appellant was originally sentenced to five years of rigorous imprisonment, thirty stripes, and a fine of Rs. 5,000. The core legal question before the High Court was whether the sentence imposed was excessive given the circumstances and the period of incarceration already served by the appellant. Upon review, the appellant did not challenge the conviction but sought a reduction in sentence based on the time already spent in custody. The State did not oppose this request. Consequently, the High Court partly accepted the appeal by maintaining the conviction but reducing the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone by the appellant, which was approximately four years and four months. Additionally, the court reduced the whipping sentence to five stripes and the fine to Rs. 2,000, with a default sentence of one month of simple imprisonment.
- Can an appellate court reduce a sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone by the accused?
- Is a sentence of whipping subject to reduction by the appellate court in a narcotics case?
- Can a fine imposed under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979 be reduced on appeal?
- Article 4, Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979
- Section 382(b), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
This judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeal No.35 of 1996 which was directed against the judgment dated 13‑3‑1996 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bahawalnagar, whereby he convicted and sentenced to Khadim Hussain appellant under Article 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order IV of 1979 to undergo five years R.I. with whipping numbering 30 stripes. He was also sentenced to fine of Rs. 5,000 in default thereof one year R.I. Benefit of section 382(b), Cr.P.C., was also granted to him. ,
2. The occurrence took place on 8‑9‑1995 in the area of Madni Colony at a distance of 1 k.m. from Police Station City District Bahawalnagar at 10‑05 p.m. while the formal F.I.R., Exh.P.A./1 was recorded by Muhammad Yousaf S.H.O., at 10‑30 p.m., on same night on the basis of written complaint Exh.P.A. made by Talib Hussain S.I., of the same Police Station.
3. The brief facts in this case are that on 8‑9‑1995 on receiving an information that the accused Khadim Hussain alias Khaidi was selling heroin in Madni Colony, Bahawalnagar, Mehar Talib Hussain S.I. (P.W.2) arranged a raiding party and raided where Khadim Hussain alongwith three other companions was selling the heroin. They attempted to run but apprehended by the police. On personal search 15 grams of heroin was recovered from the possession of Khadim Hussain appellant. Rs.1,588 was also recovered from him.
4. The prosecution in order to prove its case produced as many as six witnesses and previous record of the appellant as in Exh.P.D. and Exh.P.D./1. Recovery memo. Exh.P.B., site plan Exh.P.C. and report of Chemical Examiner Exh.P.E. Thereafter, the statement of accused/appellant under section 342, Cr.P.C., was recorded in which he pleaded not guilty and claimed false implication.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant appointed by Court at state expense, submits that as appellant is behind the bars since 8‑9‑1995, he will not dispute the conviction awarded to the appellant if the sentence which the appellant has already undergone i.e., four years and four months be treated sufficient in the circumstances of the case.
6. On the other hand learned A.A.‑G. does not oppose the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant.
7. In this view of the matter this appeal is partly accepted while maintaining the conviction and reducing the sentence to which the appellant has already undergone to be treated as sufficient to meet the ends of justice. However, as far as punishment of thirty stripes is concerned that is reduced to 5 stripes. Sentence of fine is also reduced from Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 2,000, in default thereof one month S.I., with this modification in the sentence this appeal stands disposed of.
H. B. T. /K‑11/L
Order accordingly.