SCMR 2011

2011 SCMR 965 (PLP)

ABDUL REHMAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Decided Date
Criminal Petition No. 103-K of 2008, decided on 24th December, 2008.
Honorable Judges
Zia Perwez, Sabihuddin Ahmed and Sarmad Jalal Osmany, JJ
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2011 SCMR 965 (PLP)
Forum / Court Supreme Court of Pakistan
Bench Members Zia Perwez, Sabihuddin Ahmed and Sarmad Jalal Osmany, JJ
Parties ABDUL REHMAN — Petitioner 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 2011 SCMR 965 (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 2011 SCMR 965 (PLP)?

The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Zia Perwez, Sabihuddin Ahmed and Sarmad Jalal Osmany, JJ.

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

Cite this legal precedent as: 2011 SCMR 965 (PLP) (ABDUL REHMAN — Petitioner 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)

Representation

  • Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court and Suleman Habibullah, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
  • 3. On the petition, coming up before this Court Mr. Mahmood A. Qureshi, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner stated that he would not press the petition on merits, however, his only grievance is with regard to the quantum of sentence of the petitioner. Accordingly, notice was issued to the Prosecutor-General. Mr. Mahmood A. Qureshi, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner in support of his contentions that the petitioner was a first time offender and not a hardened criminal placed reliance on the case of Niazud Din v. The State (2007 SCMR 206) wherein on recovery of quantity of 5 kilograms heroin, the quantum of sentence was reduced from 10 years to six years R.I. by a Bench of this court.

Headnotes / Summary

(On appeal from the judgment dated 26-11-2008 of the High Court of Sindh, Circuit Court, Hyderabad passed in Criminal Appeal No. D-258 of 2006).

S. 9

Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)

Sentence, reduction in

Petitioner/accused was convicted and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for 14 years with fine

Counsel for the petitioner had stated that he would not press the petition on merits, however his only grievance was with regard to the quantum of sentence of the petitioner

Prosecutor-General in view of the facts that the petitioner was a first time offender and not habitual criminal conceded to the reduction of sentence

Validity

No previous record of conviction of the petitioner in any offence was on record

Recovery effected was `Charas' as pointed out by the counsel, which was distinct from heroin

Case, in circumstances called for lenient view

While converting the petition into appeal, same was partly allowed

Sentence and conviction of appellant/petitioner was reduced to five years' R.I. with benefit of S.382-B, Cr.P. C., accordingly. Niazud Din v. The State 2007 SCMR 206 ref. Shahadat Awan, P.-G., Sindh for the. State.

Judgment & Decree

ZIA PERWEZ, J.

This Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal is directed against the impugned judgment dated 26-11-2008 in Criminal Appeal No. D-258 of 2006, whereby, a learned Division Bench of High Court of Sindh, Circuit Court, Hyderabad, while upholding the judgment of learned Special Judge, Control of Narcotic Substances, Hyderabad in Special Case No. 47 of 2005 and sentence of the petitioner to suffer imprisonment for 14 years with fine of Rs. 5,00,000 or in default to suffer six months more imprisonment, dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner.

2. The facts of the case are that on 15-6-2005, Excise Inspector Saleemullah of Divisional Intelligence Branch, -Hyderabad along with his subordinate staff in pursuance M. an Entry No. 44 at the police station conducted checking of vehicles at Kotri. They intercepted a Suzuki Van at about 7-00 p.m. and recovered one white coloured ragzine bag from the possession of the present petitioner containing five slabs of charas wrapped in newspaper in addition to cash of Rs.

250. Samples weighing 10 grains each were drawn from all the slabs, which were sealed and forwarded for Chemical Examination. The Chemical Examiner's Report was positive and confirmed the contents of the parcels were charas. After usual investigation and registration of the case, the petitioner was tried. He was convicted and sentenced by the learned trial Court as stated above. His appeal before the learned High Court was also dismissed. Hence, this petition for leave to appeal.

3. On the petition, coming up before this Court Mr. Mahmood A. Qureshi, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner stated that he would not press the petition on merits, however, his only grievance is with regard to the quantum of sentence of the petitioner. Accordingly, notice was issued to the Prosecutor-General. Mr. Mahmood A. Qureshi, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner in support of his contentions that the petitioner was a first time offender and not a hardened criminal placed reliance on the case of Niazud Din v. The State (2007 SCMR 206) wherein on recovery of quantity of 5 kilograms heroin, the quantum of sentence was reduced from 10 years to six years R.I. by a Bench of this court. Mr. Shahadat Awan, learned Prosecutor-General in view of the facts that the present petitioner is a first time offender and not habitual criminal conceded to the reduction of sentence.

4. After perusal of the record in the light of the arguments advanced before us, it appears that there is no previous record of the conviction of the petitioner in any offence. The recovery effected is charas as pointed out by the learned counsel is distinct from heroin, therefore, the case calls for a lenient view.

5. For the foregoing reasons, while converting this petition into appeal, we allow the same partly. The sentence and conviction of the appellant is reduced to five years' R.I. with benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. and with fine of Rs. 250,000 (Rupees two lac and fifty thousands) in default of payment of fine the appellant shall undergo further S.I. six months. H.B.T./A-10/SC Order accordingly.