YOUSUF DIN vs THE STATE
The appellant, Yousuf Din, was convicted by the Special Judge (Central) Anti-Smuggling and Anti-Corruption, Peshawar, for an offense under Section 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, receiving a sentence of two years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000, with a default clause of six months' imprisonment. Following the dismissal of his appeal by the Peshawar High Court, the appellant sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, specifically challenging the quantum of the sentence imposed. Upon review of the record and the arguments presented, the Supreme Court observed that the stolen property in question belonged to the Government. Finding no mitigating circumstances to justify a reduction or interference with the sentence, the Court upheld the conviction and sentence as legal and appropriate. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming that the sentence imposed by the trial court was commensurate with the offense involving state property.
- Is interference with a legal sentence justified when the stolen property belongs to the Government and no mitigating circumstances exist?
- Can the Supreme Court reduce a sentence imposed under Section 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in the absence of mitigating factors?
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.-- Appellant was held guilty by the Special Judge (Central) Anti-Smuggling and Anti-Corruption, Government of N.-W.F.P, Peshawar, under section 411, P.P.C. And was sentenced to two years' R.I. And a fine of Rs,2,000 or in default to undergo further six months' R.I.
2. Appeal filed by him in Peshawar High Court was dismissed but leave was granted to him by this Court in order to consider the question of sentence imposed upon him.
3. ' We have gone through the record of the case in the light of the argument addressed by the learned counsel for the appellant. The stolen property belonged to the Government and since there are no mitigating circumstances whatsoever, interference by this Court with the legal sentence awarded to the appellant would not be justified. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.