2008 PLP 815 (SCMR)
JALAL KHAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2008 PLP 815 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, Muhammad Akhtar Shabbir and Syed Sakhi Hussain Bokhari, JJ |
| Parties | JALAL KHAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 815 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2008 PLP 815 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, Muhammad Akhtar Shabbir and Syed Sakhi Hussain Bokhari, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 PLP 815 (SCMR) (JALAL KHAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Zaman Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner (on State expense).
- Mehmood Raza, Additional Advocate-General Balochistan for the State.
- 3. On the other hand, the learned Additional Advocate-General, Balochistan, submitted that in terms of clause (c) of section 9 of the Act, the quantity of heroin exceeded one kilogram. Therefore, the petitioner was rightly sentenced to life imprisonment to which no exception could be taken.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment of the High Court of Balochistan Quetta dated 22-5-2006 passed in Criminal Appeal in No.276 of 2006).
S. 9(c)
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)
Proviso to S.9 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, was not attracted in the case which provided for the sentence of imprisonment for life as the minimum one, where the quantity of narcotics exceeded ten kilograms
Clause (c) of S.9 of the said Act clearly postulated that in an appropriate case the sentence of death or imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term extended to fourteen years could be legally awarded, where quantity of narcotics exceeded one kilogram
Trial Court in the present case had exercised- its discretion properly in awarding the sentence of imprisonment for life in view of recovery of nine kilograms heroin
Supreme Court ordinarily did not interfere with the legal sentence awarded by the Court of competent jurisdiction
Impugned judgment did not suffer from any error of law or fact
Leave to appeal was refused to accused in circumstances. Brig. (R) F.B. Ali v. State PLD 1975 SC 506 rel. Mehmood Raza, Additional Advocate-General Balochistan for the State.
Judgment & Decree
FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.
A criminal case F.I.R. No.145 of 2004 dated 4-12-2004 under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as "'the Act") was registered against the petitioner at Police Station Hub, District Lasbella with the allegation that he was found carrying a sack containing 36 Sandles containing heroin powder weighing 9 kilograms packed in plastic and cloth packets, each containing 250 grams. The Special Judge (C.N.S.) Lasbella at Hub convicted him under section 9(c) of the Act and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.50,000 or to further undergo S.I. for six months in case of default of payment of fine, vide judgment, dated 5-9-2005. However, the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. was extended in his favour. The High Court of Balochistan, Quetta dismissed his Criminal Appeal No.276 of 2006. Hence, this petition for leave to appeal.
2. The learned counsel submitted that although the case against the petitioner was proved to the hilt but he could not have been sentenced to life imprisonment in view of proviso to section 9 of the Act as the quantity of heroin did not exceed 10 kilograms.
3. On the other hand, the learned Additional Advocate-General, Balochistan, submitted that in terms of clause (c) of section 9 of the Act, the quantity of heroin exceeded one kilogram. Therefore, the petitioner was rightly sentenced to life imprisonment to which no exception could be taken.
4. We have heard the learned counsel as well as the learned Law Officer at length and have also perused the record.
5. We fail to understand as to how the proviso to section 9 is attracted in the present case which provides for the sentence off' imprisonment for life, as the minimum one, where the quantity of narcotics exceeds ten kilograms. Clause (c) of section 9 of the Act clearly postulates that in an appropriate case the sentence of death or imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term extended to 14 years can be legally awarded where quantity of narcotics exceeds one kilogram. In this case, the trial Court exercised its discretion properly in awarding the sentence of imprisonment for life in view of recovery of 9 kilograms heroin. Ordinarily, we need not interfere with the legal sentence awarded by the Court of competent jurisdiction. Reliance can be safely placed on the case of Brig. (R) F.B. Ali v. The State PLD 1975 SC
506. We do not find any error of law or fact in the impugned judgment so as to warrant interference by this Court. This is not a fit case for grant of leave to appeal.
6. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused accordingly. N.H.Q./J-2/SC??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Leave refused.