MUNASINGH ARACHCHIGE Versus STATE

Appellant Mrs. Munasingh Arachchige Aslin Nona, a Sri Lankan national was convicted on her own plea of guilt by learned Special Judge (Customs and Taxation) Karachi, for the offence under clause (8) of section 156(1) of the Customs Act, 1969, who vide judgment, dated 6‑7‑1989, sentenced her to suffer R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000 or in default to suffer R.I. for seven days. The benefit of section 382‑B, Cr.P.C. was also extended to the appellant. By this jail appeal the appellant has questioned the legality of her conviction and sentence.

2. On 17‑12‑1988, at about 2 a.m. the appellant was apprehended at Terminal III, of Karachi Airport while leaving for Colombo and from the suitcase which she was carrying one Kg. powder of heroin concealed in its false bottom was recovered. A case for the said offence was registered and the appellant was served with a notice under section 171 of the Customs Act, 1969. After usual investigation the appellant was sent up before Special Judge (Customs and Taxation) Karachi, who tried and convicted her for the sentence with which she was charged.

3. I have heard the appellant in person and Mr. Jalaluddin Baluch, learned counsel for State. The latter has supported the impugned judgment.

4. Section 412, Cr.P.C. bars an appeal where an accused pleads guilty, except to the extent or legality of sentence. There is nothing illegal in the sentence awarded to appellant. The sentence in fact leans towards leniency. The object of punishment, as pointed out by Tyron Edward, is three‑fold for just retribution; for the protection of society; for the reformation of the offender. The length and severity of the sentence has, therefore, to be determined on the circumstances of each case, keeping in view the object of punishment.

5. There is alarming increase of such cases which is mainly due to lenient sentence. It is important to stress that such situation arises, not from the law itself, but from their defective understanding and interpretation. There is a certain amount of tentativeness at all levels. The sentence should not be so lenient as to make crimes of this nature still lucrative. The‑foreigners who are involved in such heinous offences are again not entitled to any preferential treatment. The object of awarding sentence is to provide a deterrent effect on others.

6. With the above observations the appeal is dismissed.

N.H.Q./M‑919/K Appeal dismissed.