DI ANGELO TOMASOO ITALIAN vs THE STATE
This criminal appeal concerns an Italian national convicted by the Special Judge, Customs, Lahore, for attempting to smuggle three kilograms of heroin out of Pakistan, an offence under section 156(1)8 of the Customs Act, 1969. The appellant was originally sentenced to four years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rupees ten thousand, with a default clause for non-payment. Upon appeal, the appellant did not challenge the conviction but sought a reduction in the sentence, citing his status as a foreign national, his prolonged detention as an under-trial and convict, his inability to pay the fine due to destitution, and the likelihood of further penalization upon his return to Italy. The Court, finding no reason to disturb the conviction, focused solely on the quantum of the sentence. Considering the appellant's circumstances, including his language barrier and the time already served, the Court exercised its discretion to reduce the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone and halved the fine, stipulating a reduced default sentence of one month of simple imprisonment.
- Can a court reduce a sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone for a foreign national convicted of smuggling?
- Does the appellate court have the discretion to reduce a fine imposed under the Customs Act 1969 based on the appellant's financial destitution?
- Is a conviction under the Customs Act 1969 subject to sentence mitigation if the appellant does not challenge the conviction itself?
- Section 156(1)8, Customs Act 1969
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
' Di-angelo Tomasso was tried by the learned Special Judge, Customs, Lahore, under section 156(1)8 of the Customs Act for attempting to smuggle three kilograms of heroin to India and convicted under the said section and sentenced to four years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rupees ten thousand (Rs,10,000) or in default thereof to undergo further simple imprisonment for six months. The accused was also given the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
2. The brief facts of the case are that Mr. Di-angelo Tomasso, an Italian National, holding Passport No,324681-D, while leaving for India on 15th February, 1988, presented his suitcase at the Customs Counter for checking at Lahore Airport. On checking, it was found that the said suit-case contained a false bottom. On breaking open this false bottom, two plastic bags of heroin weighing 3 Kgs.
Were recovered, which the accused attempted to smuggle out of Pakistan. He was arrested at the spot and the seized heroin was taken into possession.
3. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and the Customs Authorities.
4. 1 need not go into the merits of the case, as the learned counsel for the petitioner does not challenge the conviction of the appellant recorded under section 156(1)8 of the Customs Act, 1969, but only prays that the sentence of the appellant be reduced on the ground that the appellant is an Italian national, that he has suffered detention both as an under trial prisoner and as a convict for more than nine months, and that no sooner he returns to his country, he will be penalized there.
It is further submitted that the fine imposed on him is very heavy and being totally destitute, he is not able to pay the heavy amount of fine. Learned counsel has cited Rodolf Josef v. The State 1983 P Cr. L J 1983 and Plagot Roland (French National) v. The State Criminal Appeal No, 664-C of 1986, decided by the Lahore High Court on 18-2-1987.
5. Since the conviction is not challenged, I need not go into the merits of the case. The only question that remains is that dealing with sentence. The appellant was not allowed bail by the trial Judge and has been under detention right from 15-2-1988. The appellant is an Italian national, who does not understand English or the local language and is rotting in Jail. I am informed thati no sooner the petitioner is released, he shall leave Pakistan and he will also be penalized when he returns to Italy. Taking all circumstances into consideration, I would, therefore, reduce the appellant's sentence of imprisonment from four years' rigorous imprisonment to that already undergone and line from Rupees ten thousand (Rs,I0,000) to Rupees five thousand (Rs,5,000). Hi case the fine is not paid, the appellant shall suffer simple imprisonment for one month.
6. This appeal, therefore, stands partly accepted, in terms of reduction in sentence and fine, as stated above.
Cited by 7 cases
- IKHTIYAR vs THE STATE 2009 P Cr. L J 355
- SHOUKAT ALI vs THE STATE 2009 YLR 640
- ILLAHI BUX vs THE STATE 2009 YLR 1242
- CHRISTOPHER ROLLINS KELLY Versus THE STATE 1997 PCRLJ 51
- IKENNA vs THE STATE 1995 P Cr. L J 1296
- Novak Eva Bermadett and others vs The State PTCL 1994 CL. 352
- NOVAKEVA BERMADETT Versus THE STATE 1994 PCRLJ 651