P L D 1996 Karachi 349 (PLP)

Appellant being aggrieved and dissatisfied has filed this jail appeal against the judgment of the learned Special Judge (Customs and Taxation), Karachi in Case No 44 of 1995 whereby he convicted the. appellant to suffer R.I. for four years and to pay a fine of Rs.40,000 or in default of payment of fine the appellant shall undergo further R ‑ 1. for one year for an offence punishable under section 1560)(8) of the Customs‑, Art. The case of the prosecution is that on 10‑2‑1995 Preventive Officer Customs Zahoor Ahmed intercepted the appellant in the International Departure Hall, Jinnah Terminal, Quaid‑e‑Azam International Airport, Karachi. Appellant was bound to leave for Addis Ababa by flight No. Ek‑

603. The Customs Officer in presence of two Mashirs searched the baggage of the appellant and secured 130 packets made up of paper adhesive tapes which were stitched under the pockets and belts of 67 baby trousers. On examination of 130 packets those were found to contain 2330 grains heroin powder. The Customs Officer seized the heroin powder and arrested the appellant under a proper Mashirnama. Appellant was served upon the notice under section 171 of Customs Act. After lodging of the F.I.R. and finalization of investigation charge- sheet against the appellant was submitted in the Court of Special Judge (Customs and Taxation), Karachi. At the trial the appellant submitted an application Exh.2 wherein she had admitted the commission of offence and also requested that her case may be decided on the date of hearing. Accordingly charge under section 156(l)(8) of the Customs Act was framed against the appellant‑to which she pleaded guilty and placed herself at the mercy of the trial Court. Appellant in the trial Court submitted that she is a poor lady and mother of four children and she herself is the only supporter of her family. In view of the plea of guilt the appellant was convicted as mentioned hereinabove. Appellant has been called for from jail and I have also heard her. She has requested that some leniency so far the sentence is concerned may be shown. Learned D.A. ‑G. is of the opinion that trial Court has already shown leniency in awarding sentence to the appellant whereas 2330 grams of heroin powder has been recovered from the appellant. I would like to refer 1996 SCMR 246 (The State through Deputy Attorney‑General v. Muhammad Siddique) in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan admitted the petition for leave to appeal with the following facts. Muhammad Siddique respondent was apprehended alongwith Zardad Khan his co‑accused on 5‑5‑1992 at 08‑00 hours while smuggling 85 Kgs. of contraband Charas of foreign origin by Truck No.PRC‑8726, and was therefore, charged on 5‑10‑1992 for an offence punishable under sections 156(89) and 178 of the Customs Act (IV of 1969). Muhammad Siddique pleaded guilty to the charge and he was, therefore, convicted and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000 or in default to undergo further R.I. for three years. Co‑accused did not plead guilty to the charge and was placed on trial. The learned trial Court after recording evidence of the prosecution witnesses and examining the accused convicted him also in the same terms. The two convicts challenged their convictions and sentences in the High Court separately which were heard and disposed of by a consolidated judgment recorded by the learned Chief Justice whereby the conviction of the respondent was maintained but the sentences of R.I. for three years was reduced to one and a half year and likewise the fine was also reduced to Rs.50,000 whereas appeal of Zardad Khan co- accused of the respondent was accepted and his conviction and sentence was set aside. The State through Deputy Attorney‑General submitted the petition for leave to appeal referred he rein above against the judgment of the learned Chief Justice of the Peshawar High Court whereby the sentence of R.I. for three years was reduced to one and a half year and the fine was also reduced to Rs.50,

000. The observation of the Supreme Court while granting‑leave to appeal is as follows:‑‑ "Mr. Saadat Hussain, learned Deputy Attorney‑General appearing on behalf of the State contends that merely because respondent No.1 had pleaded guilty does not legally entitle him to any uncalled for leniency in the matter of sentence particularly when the offence committed was of smuggling of huge quantity of 8500 Kgs. of contraband narcotics. He further urged that the learned Special Judge had already dealt with respondent No.1 very leniently and further leniency shown by the learned Chief Justice of the High Court would set the whole operation at naught." I have considered the contentions of the appellant so also the learned D.A.‑G. I have also gone through the authority of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Drug trafficking nowadays has been adopted as a trade by the foreigners as well as few Pakistanis nationals. This menace has created social problems or e society, country and for humanity as a whole. Drug Traffickers in any case do not deserve leniency. Huge quantity of heroin powder has been recovered from the appellant and at the time of commission of the offence she had no, considered the consequences of the act for which she stands convicted. After the commission of the crime any expression of remorse is of no concern. This crime can only be curtailed/curbed if proper sentences are awarded. She being a female has already been dealt with leniently in awarding sentence by the learned trial Court and further leniency is not called for. I am of the firm opinion that this appeal is without merit and consequently is dismissed. N.H.Q./A‑28/K Appeal dismissed.