AMANAT ALI Versus State
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Kasur, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 9(b) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and sentenced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment along with a fine. The core legal questions involved the legality of the raid conducted without a warrant or Magistrate and the reliability of the prosecution evidence regarding the recovery of narcotics from the appellant's premises. The court held that while the conviction stood based on the overall circumstances and evidence, the interest of justice would be served by reducing the appellant's sentence to the period already undergone. The key principle laid down is that appellate courts may exercise discretion to reduce narcotics sentences to the period already undergone keeping in view the overall circumstances and the duration of incarceration suffered.
- Does an illegal raid conducted without a warrant or Magistrate vitiate the entire trial under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
- Can an appellate court reduce a narcotics sentence to the term already undergone based on the overall circumstances of the case?
- Section 9(b), Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ALI NAWAZ CHOWHAN, J.--- This Criminal Appeal arises froth the judgment, dated 4-9-2002 handed down by Mian Arshad Mehmood, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kasur. Whereby, he while acquitting co-accused Faiz giving him benefit of doubt, convicted the appellant Amanat Ali under section 9(b) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and sentenced him to 7 years' R.I. along with a fine of Rs.5000 or in default whereof, he was to suffer 3 months' R.I. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C., was, however, given to him. The appellant is incarcerated ever since.
2. The matter pertains to case F.I.R. No.15, dated 15-1-2000 registered at Police Station Sadar Kausar, under section 6-9/15 of C.N.S.A., 1997.
3. The complaint was registered at the instance of Muhammad Azhar Hussain who is an Excise Inspector. He along with the police party and on directions of a Monitoring Team raided the premises of Amanat Ali appellant. There was no Magistrate nor any search warrant with them. It is said that the door of the house was open and the raiding party saw Amanat Ali packing the narcotic substances after he had weighed them. That the appellant after seeing the police party made good his escape while leaving behind him a shopper. Wherein 500 grams of heroin, 300 grams of Charas and a sum of Rs.1800 were found. The appellant's wife was also found to be in possession of a shopper. She too tried to slip away but was caught and was said to be in possession of 250 grams of Charas. The raiding party then went to the premises occupied by the second wife of the appellant and raided there. Where the appellant's son also made good his escape and from the shopper which he left behind, 350 grams of Charas and 115 grams of heroin were found.
4. Two challans in this case were submitted although based on the same F.I.R. Bashiran Bibi accused in the first challan expired during the pendency of the case and Ghulam Rasool got murderer, therefore, Amanat Ali and Fiaz Ahmad remained to be tried.
5. Against Amanat Ali, Ghulam Nabi Constable appeared as the first prosecution witness and supported the prosecution story. Muhammad Azhar Hussain, the Excise Inspector was the second witness in support of the prosecution case. Haq Nawaz, S.-I., is the Investigating Officer who was entrusted the investigation of this case. He kept the parcels in safe custody.
6. Believing the witnesses, the learned trial Court found Amanat Ali guilty and sentenced him accordingly.
7. The main argument of the learned counsel for the appellant was about the illegal raid into the premises of the appellant and it is said that this vitiated the entire trial. It was next stated that there is every possibility that the heroin and Charas were planted because the appellant was not apprehended at the spot.
8. The last submission of the learned counsel for the appellant was that the appellant has already suffered the rigors of trial and incarceration sufficiently and keeping in view the quantum of the narcotics, his sentence be reduced.
9. After hearing both sides, we are of the view that keeping in view the overall circumstances of the case and the last plea of the appellant's counsel, it will serve the interest of justice if his sentence is reduced to one undergone. Orders are made accordingly. The rest of the order of the learned trial Court shall, remain intact. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
H.B.T/A-186/L Order accordingly.