NASRULLAH KHAN vs THE STATE
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under section 9 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Ordinance, 1995, by the Sessions Judge, Islamabad, acting as a Special Court. The core legal question concerns the quantum of sentence and whether leniency should be extended to a first-time offender found in possession of narcotics. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved the recovery of 980 grams of Charas from the appellant's possession through consistent and reliable police testimony. While upholding the conviction on merits as unchallenged, the court accepted the prayer for leniency regarding the sentence. The key principle laid down is that appellate courts may exercise discretion to reduce a sentence to the period already undergone, coupled with a modified fine, to afford a young, first-time offender an opportunity for reformation.
- Whether the uncorroborated testimony of police officials can be relied upon for conviction in narcotics cases when the accused is a stranger to them?
- Can an appellate court reduce a sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone by considering the status of the accused as a first offender?
- Whether the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is applicable upon conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Ordinance, 1995?
- Section 9, Control of Narcotic Substances Ordinance 1995
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
' MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, J.-- The appellant namely Nasrullah Khan son of Mian Khan was tried for the charge under section 9 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Ordinance, 1995 (now C.N.S.A.
1997) by the learned Sessions Judge, Islamabad, exercising the powers of Special Court constituted under the above-referred Act.
2. The appellant having been found guilty of the charge was convicted and sentenced to seven years' R.I. With a fine of Rs,5,000 and in default of the payment of fine to undergo R.I. For one year vide judgment, dated 20-8-1997. However, he was extended the benefit of section 382-B, Cr,P,C.
3. Briefly, the case against the appellant was that on 29-1-1996 at 1-30 p.m. Arif Baig, S.-I. Alongwith other police officials named in the F.I.R. On information deboarded him from bus coming from Peshawar side as a suspect. The appellant made an attempt to escape but was apprehended at the spot and was found carrying 980 grams of Charas which was taken into possession and a quantity of ten grams was separated and sent to the Chemical Examiner. The report of Chemical Examiner is Exh.P.
4. The prosecution produced seven witnesses including the member of the raiding party in proof of the charge against the appellant. The witnesses deposing consistently in detail proved the recovery of the Charas from the person of the appellant at the time of his search and arrest. The appellant denied the possession of the Charas and other incriminating evidence against him in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C., but did not produce any evidence in defence. The learned trial Court after detail scrutiny of the evidence having found the appellant guilty of the charge convicted and sentenced him as stated above.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant without challenging the conviction on merits argued that the appellant being a young man and first offender deserves leniency in the matter of sentence.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned State Counsel and also perused the record with their assistance. The careful examination of the evidence reveals that there is no describable circumstance in favour of the appellant to draw an inference of his false implication or that the recovery was not effected from his person and that the same effected from the bus as he pleaded at the trial. The appellant was a stranger to the witnesses, therefore, it could not be suggested that the witnesses being the police officials were not independent to be relied upon for the purpose of conviction. Be that as it may, the appellant without challenging the conviction has prayed for the reduction of the sentence on the ground that he has no previous history of dealing in the narcotics. We, therefore, in the circumstances with a view to provide him a chance for his reformation showing leniency, are inclined to reduce his sentence. The appellant after his arrest on 29-1-1996 has spent a total period of about two years and five months in jail facing agony of trial. We, therefore, giving the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C., to the appellant reduce his sentence to the period i,e, two years and five months, already spent by him in jail. We also reducing the sentence of fine from Rs,5,000 to Rs,1,000 direct that in default of the payment of fine he will suffer S.I. For two months. This appeal with the above reduction and modification in the sentence is dismissed.