GHULAM YASEEN vs THE STATE
This matter arises from two criminal appeals filed by Ghulam Yaseen against his conviction and sentences under Section 9-B of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Layyah, for the possession of charas and opium. The core legal question was whether the substantive sentences of imprisonment awarded in separate trials should run concurrently pursuant to Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Lahore High Court accepted the appeal to the extent of sentencing, holding that the sentences in both cases shall run concurrently, and reduced the sentence of fine from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 2,500 in each case. The key principle laid down is that the appellate court may direct multiple sentences of imprisonment to run concurrently under Section 397 Cr.P.C. where appropriate, and adjust ancillary fines.
- Whether sentences of imprisonment in multiple cases can be ordered to run concurrently under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can an appellate court reduce the quantum of fine imposed under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
- Section 9-B, Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 397, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
' M.A. SHAHID SADDIQUI, J.---This judgment shall dispose of Criminal Appeals No,666 of 2001 and 667 of 2001. Ghulam Yasin, appellant in both the appeals has been convicted by Mr.Muqurab Khan, Additional Sessions Judge-I, Layyah, vide two separate judgments dated 13-9-2001. In case F.I.R.
No,228 dated 17-7-2000, the appellant/ accused has been convicted under section 9-B of the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997, and sentenced to five years, R.I. And a fine of Rs,50,000 for having been found in possession of charas weighing one kilogram. In case F.I.R. No,230 dated 20-7-2001, the appellant/accused was found to have got recovered opium while in police custody in the case of the aforesaid F.I.R. No,228 of 2000. In this case also appellant has been convicted under section 9-B of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and sentenced to five years' R.I.
And a fine of Rs,50,000. The learned trial Court while convicting the appellant in both the cases failed to order that the sentences shall run concurrently.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant without challenging the validity of the convictions in both the cases prayed for an order under section 397 Cr.P.C. Directing that the sentences in both the cases shall run concurrently. He placed relieve on PLD 1991 Supreme Court 1145 and 1987 ,PCr.LJ 2169 and unreported judgment dated 18-9-2001 of this Court in the case of "Shamshad Hussain alias Shamia v. The State'f `(Criminal Appeal No,75 of 2000). Learned counsel for appellant has also prayed for the resulting fine .
3. We have considered the arguments and find ourselves in agreement with the learned counsel for the appellant. The sentences passed in both the cases are ordered to run concurrently. The sentence of fine is also reduced from Rs,50,000 to Rs,2500 in each case. The appellant shall be released subject to deposit of fine. In case of default in the payment of fine he shall suffer further imprisonment for a period of one year from the date of this order.