THE STATE through Deputy Attorney General vs MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE
This matter arises from a petition filed by the State against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, whereby the respondent's sentence for smuggling a huge quantity of contraband charas was reduced. The respondent was apprehended alongside a co-accused while transporting 8,500 kilograms of foreign origin charas by truck, and was charged, pleaded guilty, and convicted under the Customs Act 1969. The High Court maintained the conviction but reduced the sentence of rigorous imprisonment and fine, relying on the grounds that the respondent was a mere carrier, had pleaded guilty, and faced another trial under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979. The core legal question concerns whether pleading guilty and being a mere carrier justify undue leniency in sentencing for large-scale narcotics smuggling. The Supreme Court held that the contentions raised by the State required consideration and granted leave to appeal. The key principle laid down is that pleading guilty to an offence involving a massive quantity of contraband does not inherently entitle an offender to uncalled-for leniency in the quantum of sentence.
- Does pleading guilty to a charge of smuggling a massive quantity of contraband narcotics legally entitle an accused to uncalled-for leniency in sentencing?
- Whether the status of being merely a carrier of narcotics is a sufficient ground for substantial reduction of sentence in large-scale smuggling cases?
- Can the pendency of a separate trial under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979 justify leniency in sentencing under the Customs Act 1969?
- Section 156(89), Customs Act 1969
- Section 178, Customs Act 1969
- Article 3/4, Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979
ORDER
' MUHAMMAD BASHIR KHAN JEHANGIRI, J.--- Muhammad Siddique respondent was apprehended alongwith Zardad Khan his co-accused on 5-5-1992 at 0800 hours within the limits of village Jalala on Mardan - Malaccan Road while "smuggling 8500 k.Gs of contraband charas of foreign origin by Truck No, PRC-8726 and was, therefore, charged on 5-10-1992 for an offence punishable under sections 156(89) and 178 of the Customs Act (IV of 1969). On the same day, Muhammad Siddique pleaded guilty to the charge before the learned Special Judge, Customs (Central), Peshawar. He was, therefore, convicted under sections 156(89) and 178 of the Customs Act and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs,1,00,000 or in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three years. Zardad Khan coaccused of the respondent did not plead guilty to the charge and was placed on Trial. After recording evidence df the prosecution and examining the accused the learned Special Hedge convicted and sentenced him in the same terms. The two convicts challenged their convictions and sentences in the High Court separately which were heard and disposed of by a consolidated judgment recorded on 22-5-1993 by the then learned Chief Justice whereby the conviction of the respondent was maintained but the sentences of rigorous imprisonment for three years was reduced to one and a half year and likewise the fine was also reduced to Rs,50,000 whereas appeal of Zardad Khan co-accused of the respondent was accepted and his conviction and sentence were set aside.
2. This petition is directed against the judgment of the learned Chief Justice of Peshawar High Court whereby the sentence of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs,100000 against the respondent was reduced to rigorous imprisonment for one and a half year and fine was reduced to Rs,50,000 on a charge under, section 156(89)/178 of the Customs Act (IV of 1969). The learned Chief Justice relied on the dictum in the case of Zakaria and 7 others v. The State (1976 P Cr. IJ 166), (which was not a case of narcotics) to hold that respondent No, 1 was entitled to more leniency than that exhibited by the learned Special Judge in the quantum of sentence on the grounds, firstly, that he was merely a carrier of the contraband narcotics; secondly, that he had pleaded guilty; and, thirdly, that he will further "face the ordeal of a Trial on charges under Article 3/4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979.
3. . Mr. Saadat Hussain, learned Deputy Attorney-General appearing on / behalf of the State contends that merely because respondent No: 1 had pleaded I Guilty does not legally entitle him to any uncalled for leniency in the matter of sentence particularly when the offence committed was of smuggling of huge quantity of 85(X) k.Gs of contraband narcotics. He further urged that the learned Special Judge had already dealt with, respondent No, 1 very leniently and further leniency shown by the learned Chief Justice of the High Court would set the whole operation at naught. .
4. The aforenoted contentions need consideration. Leave is, therefore, granted in this case.
Cited by 3 cases
- JAHANZEB KHAN Versus State 2022 YLRN 186
- ROYCE DEAN WELLMAN vs THE STATE Through Collector Of Customs 1997 MLD 1708
- ROYCE DEAN WELLMAN vs THE STATE 1997 P.C.T.L.R. 245