AMEER BUX vs THE STATE

1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL SOOMRO, J.--- This appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 8-5-2000 passed by Special Judge Narcotics, Dadu, whereby the appellant Amir Bux has been found guilty for having committed an offence under section 9(b) of the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997 and has been sentenced to suffer R.I. For seven years and to pay fine of Rs,1,000 in case of default to suffer S.I. For one month more. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Has also been extended to him.

2. ' Precisely stated the case of prosecution is that the appellant was found on 10-6-1998 at 5-30 in possession of half kilogram of Charas and cash of Rs,50 which were recovered in presence of A.S.-I.

3. Inayatullah and A.S.-I. Muhammad Khan. It is alleged that co-accused Saifo who was also present at that time managed to escape. The appellant and the co-accused Saifo, showing the latter absconder, were reported against before the Court of jurisdiction. Subsequently, co-accused Saifo was also arrested and by way of supplementary charge-sheet, he was also reported against to stand his trial.

4. ' Charge Exh.2 was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

5. Thereafter, prosecution led their evidence followed by statements under section 342, Cr.P.C. Of the appellant and of co-accused. No defence evidence was led by the appellant. On conclusion of trial, the appellant was convicted and sentenced as above whereas co-accused was acquitted.

6. ' Learned counsel for the appellant without touching the merit first expressed that the sentence awarded to the appellant is not well-proportioned being not commensurate with the quantity of the Charas allegedly recovered from him. He submitted that section 9(b) provides punishment extending to seven years to an offender contravening the provisions of sections 6, 7 and 8 of the Act ibid, if the quantity of the Narcotic drug/substances does not exceed one kilogram. He submitted that such offence relating a quantity up to 100 grams are punishable under section 9(a) whereas offence relating to the quantity ranging from 101 to 1000 grams is covered by section 9(b).

7. Learned counsel, having so referred to the aforementioned provision of law, submitted that it cannot be the intention of the Legislators to award maximum punishment to an offender found with quantity of 101 grams and same punishment is meant to be awarded to a person with one thousand grams as well. He viewed that in such circumstances, the punishment, to wrong doers extendable to seven years ought to be commensurate with quantity of recovered Narcotic drug/substances. He submitted that 500 grams of Charas are alleged to have been recovered from the appellant, therefore, on consideration of his assumption, the appellant would be liable to punishment for not more than three years and six months in case, on merits of prosecution case, he is found guilty of commission of offence alleged against him. He, however, expressed that the appellant shall not press his appeal on merits and shall only crave for reduction of the sentence, in view of above.

8. ' Learned State Counsel has very frankly conceded to the proposal of learned counsel for the appellant that the quantum of sentence as well as the amount of fine be reduced.

9. ' We have given our anxious consideration to the arguments of learned counsel for both the parties and we are of the view that the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant are not devoid of any force. We find enough weight in his arguments. In an unreported Criminal Appeal No,65 of 2000 (Hyderabad) decided by a Division Bench of this Court, in similar case where the appellant who was sentenced to suffer R.I. For seven years and a fine of Rs,2,000, in default to suffer R.I. For one month more for having been found in possession of narcotic substances of 325 grams of opium, a reduction in sentence commensurate with quantity so recovered was considered and allowed on his request. It will be advantageous that observation made in the cited case, is reproduced below:-- ' "The reading of this provision makes it manifestly clear that the Legislature have conferred upon the Court a discretion to award lesser or maximum punishment. Obviously in making the provision discretionary, it does not seem to be the intention of the Legislature that different punishments are awarded to wrong doers in two sets of similar circumstances. Conversely, a Court shall not be deemed to have acted justly, fairly and properly if a culprit from whom 1000 grams of narcotics substance are recovered, is awarded maximum punishment of seven years and same punishment is also awarded to that from whom lesser quantity of narcotics substance is recovered. In our view while the trial Courts are awarding sentences they should also keep in mind the quantity recovered from the accused persons and the proportion of the sentence to be awarded for that purpose."

10. Also, in the instant case there is nothing on record that the appellant has repeated the alleged crime conforming to his past habits, if any; and for that matter he has been convicted. Accordingly, taking into consideration all these facts, circumstances and the case-law, we accept the request of learned counsel for the appellant and order that the sentence awarded to the appellant under the impugned judgment is reduced from seven years to three years and six months. With this modification the rest of the impugned judgment is maintained. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.

11. Already extended under the impugned judgment shall, however, be available to the appellant.

12. ' This appeal stands disposed of in the above terms.

13. Sentence reduced. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.