PCRLJ 2010

2010 P Cr (PLP)

MAQBOOL MASIH — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Karachi
Decided Date
2010-May-27
Honorable Judges
N/A
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2010 P Cr (PLP)
Forum / Court Karachi
Bench Members N/A
Parties MAQBOOL MASIH — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
Primary Law Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 P Cr (PLP)?

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 2010 P Cr (PLP)?

The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: N/A.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2010 P Cr (PLP) (MAQBOOL MASIH — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)

Headnotes / Summary

S. 9(c)

Possessing narcotics

Appreciation of evidence

Sentence, reduction in

Accused had placed at the mercy of the court and stated that he would not press his appeal and requested that maintaining his conviction, his sentence be reduced to one already undergone

Accused had contended that he was first offender and being the only bread earner of the family, deserved a lenient view

Jail roll showed that accused had served out more than 12 years including remission

State Counsel had no objection in case the conviction of accused was maintained and sentence was reduced to already undergone

Accused had served out substantive sentence of three years, eight months and eight days and had earned remission of eight years, two months and two days, which made the total served out period of more than twelve years

Seven bundles of charas weighing 1 Kg each was recovered from accused and each bundle contained number of rods, but only 10 grams were taken from each packet for chemical analysis

Accused being first offender had repented

Taking lenient view, while maintaining the conviction, sentence of accused was reduced to one already undergone and remitted the fine.

Judgment & Decree

SAJJAD ALI SHAH, J.

The appellant upon being found guilty of offence under section 9(c) of CNS Act for possessing 7 Kgs. of charas was convicted by Special Judge CNS and was sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and fine of Rs.200,000 and in case of non-payment to further undergo imprisonment for three months. Learned Counsel for the Appellant contends that though the Appellant has a very good case on merits as only 7 Kgs. charas was allegedly recovered from him and the trial Court instead of awarding 14 years of imprisonment directed R.I. for life which is too harsh of a punishment. Secondly according to learned Counsel 7 Kgs of charas comprising 7 bundles containing number of rods were allegedly recovered from Appellant while only 10 grams were taken from each packet, therefore, the case if any against the Appellant would fall under section 9(a) of CNS Act. Notwithstanding the Applicant is placing himself at the mercy of the Court and states that he would not press the instant appeal in case this Court while maintaining conviction reduce the sentence to one already gone. It is further contended that the appellant being first offender and only .bread earner of the family deserves a lenient view. Learned counsel has invited our attention to the Jail Roll and has contended that the appellant has served out more than 12 years including remission. In the facts and circumstances of the case, learned Additional Prosecutor-General Sindh has no objection in case the conviction is maintained and sentence is reduced to already undergone. We have heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties and have perused the record including Jail Roll which reflects that the appellant has served out substantive sentence of three years, eight months and eight days and has earned remission of eight years, two months and two days which makes the total served out period of more than twelve years. The record further reflects that 7 bundles of charas weighing 1 Kg, each was recovered from the Appellant and each bundle contained number of rods notwithstanding, only 10 grams were taken from each packet for Chemical Analysis. The contention of Mr. Madad Ali Shah in view of the judgment -of the Supreme Court in the case of Muhammad Hashim v. The State PLD 2004 SC 856 carries weight. Further in our view the sentence appears to be very harsh as the apex Court in the case of Niazuddin v. The State 2007 SCMR 206 upon recovery of 5 Kgs. of heroin reduced the sentence from 10 years to 6 years and needless to record that the heroin is more costly and has more devastating effect than charas and in the case of Gul Raeef Khan v. The State 2008 SCMR 865 while maintaining the conviction of accused under section 9(c) of CNS Act reduced the sentence from 14 to 7 years. Further that the Appellant being first offender has repented and therefore, we by taking lenient view while dismissing the appeal and maintaining the conviction reduce the sentence to one already undergone and remit the fine. The appellant shall be released forthwith if not required in any other custody case. H.B.T./M-85/K Order accordingly.