STATE vs HAYATU LLAH
This criminal revision petition was filed by the State seeking the enhancement of a sentence awarded to the respondent, Hayat Ullah, who was convicted under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the possession of six kilograms of Charas. The core legal question was whether the trial court acted within its competence by sentencing the respondent to six years' rigorous imprisonment, given the statutory sentencing requirements for the quantity of narcotics involved. The Lahore High Court held that the trial court erred in awarding a sentence of six years, as Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, prescribes a more severe sentencing range for quantities exceeding one kilogram but less than ten kilograms. Consequently, the Court enhanced the sentence to fourteen years' rigorous imprisonment, while maintaining the original fine. The key principle laid down is that trial courts are bound by the mandatory sentencing provisions of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and cannot impose sentences below the statutory threshold, regardless of the accused's confessional statement or other mitigating factors.
- Can a trial court award a sentence below the statutory minimum prescribed for an offense under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
- What is the sentencing range for possession of narcotics exceeding one kilogram but less than ten kilograms under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
- Does a confessional statement made by an accused during trial justify a sentence below the statutory minimum prescribed by law?
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 9(c), Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
' KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.---This judgment will dispose of Criminal Revision No,892 of 2000 filed by the State for the enhancement of sentence against Hayat Ullah -respondent, who was convicted and sentenced by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mianwali, vide his judgment dated 30-5-2000 to undergo six years' R.I. Alongwith a fine of Rs,30,000,' in klefault one years' R.I. With the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Under section 9(c) of the C.N.S.A., 1997.
' Brief facts of the case are that on 4-6-1997 Zafar Iqbal S.-I./S.H.O. Police Station Kamar Mushani alongwith other officials conducted a raid near Bhata of Habib Ullah Shadi Khel where Fateh Khan (since P.O.) and Hayat Ullah were found. Hayat Ullah was apprehended from some distance Charas 6 Kgs. And two rifles were recovered from his possession. Fateh Khan (P.0) ran away, while throwing a plastic bag containing Charas 5 Kgs and opium 5 Kgs. Case was registered on the complaint of Zafar Iqbal S.-I./S.H.O.. After completion of the investigation, Hayat Ullah accused was challaned to face the trial while Fateh Khan accused was declared P.O.
3. Learned A.A.-G. Who had filed this revision petition for the enhancement of sentence submits that the sentence awarded to the respondent by the learned trial Court is illegal and unjustified in the circumstances of the case.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that in fact some undertaking was given by the learned trial Court to the respondent that if he makes any confession then lesser sentence would be awarded to him.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. In the instant case, six kilograms of Charas and two rifles were recovered from the respondent. He was tried, prosecution evidence was recorded, when the statement of the respondent was being recorded, he made a confessional statement.
There was no undertaking on the record from the learned Additional Sessions Judge, nor there was any pressure or coercion on the respondent in this behalf. We have also gone through section 9-C of the C.N.S.A., 1997 alongwith its proviso which are reproduced below:--
(c) death or imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term which may extend to fourteen years and shall also be liable to fine which may be upto one million rupees, if the Quantity of narcotic drug, pychotropic substance or controlled substance exceeds the limits specified in clause
(b) Provided that if the quantity exceeds ten kilogranis the punishment shall not he less than Imprisonment for life.".
6. The bare perusal of the above said 'section 9-C of the. C.N.S.A., 1997 would show if the quantity is less than 10 kilograms and exceed from one k.g. Then sentence which can be awarded to the accused is death, Imprisonment for life or fourteen years' R.I. In our considered opinion, learned trial Court was not competent to award six years' R.I. To the respondent. Respondent had made a confessional statement before the learned, trial Court. He was also being represented by a learned counsel, he did not challenge his conviction before this Court on the ground that he was awarded sentence on the ground of some undertaking or under coercion and pressure. The law does not allow to give less sentence than 14 years' R.I.
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, we are satisfied that the learned trial Court was wrong in awarding six years' R.I. To the respondent when the prosecution has been -successful in proving its case against him. In these circumstances we enhance the sentence of the respondent from six years' R.I. To 14 years' R.I. This sentence has been awarded by taking a lenient view of the matter ,because respondents had undertaken the agony of three years protracted trial. However, the sentence of fine i,e, 30,000 as ordered by the learned trial Court is maintained. If the respondent has served out his complete term of sentence as ordered by the learned trial Court then he shall be taken into custody to undergo the enhanced period of sentence. With the abovesaid modification in the sentence, this revision petition stands disposed of.
Revision .