2006 PLP 1539 (SCMR)
JOSHUA CHIGBOGU — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2006 PLP 1539 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Javed Iqbal, Mian Shakirullah Jan and Nasir-ul-Mulk, JJ |
| Parties | JOSHUA CHIGBOGU — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | (a) Control-of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), (b) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 1539 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Control-of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), (b) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 1539 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Javed Iqbal, Mian Shakirullah Jan and Nasir-ul-Mulk, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 1539 (SCMR) (JOSHUA CHIGBOGU — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sahibzada Anwer Hameed, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Muhammad Hanif Zahid, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 13th July, 2005.
- 2. Learned Advocate Supreme Court representing the petitioner did not advance any argument on merits of the case, and quite rightly so as the petitioner had not questioned his conviction before the High Court and even otherwise, there is overwhelming credible evidence to establish his guilt. The learned counsel, however, stressed for the reduction of sentence, 'urging that the petitioner is a foreigner and that since the Chemical Examiner's report did not specify the percentage of heroin in the powder recovered, the quantum of his sentence cannot be properly assessed.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 10-2-2004 passed in Criminal Appeal No.2195 of 2003).
S. 9(c)
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)
Accused being a foreigner was not a consideration for determining the quantum of sentence as the penal law of the country had to be applied with same rigor to everyone subjected to it, regardless of his nationality
Sentence had to be proportionate to the heroin powder in the form in which it was marketable, regardless of its composition
Accused had already been dealt with leniently by the Trial Court by sentencing him to ten years' R.I. under S. 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, which carried the maximum punishment of death
Leave to appeal was declined to accused accordingly.
S. 9
Sentence is to be proportionate to the heroin powder in the form in which it is marketable, regardless of its composition. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
NASIR-UL-MULK, J.
The petitioner, a Nigerian citizen, and his fellow countryman, were convicted by the Judge Special Court, Control of Narcotic Substances, Lahore, on 29-12-2002, under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 (C.N.S.A). The petitioner, who had been found in possession of 3.5 kilograms heroin was sentenced to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2,00,000 in default whereof to further suffer one year simple imprisonment. From his co-accused, 500 grams of heroin was recovered and he was sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.50,000 in default of payment whereof to suffer six months simple imprisonment. The petitioner's co-accused neither challenged his conviction and sentence before the High Court nor before this Court. Though the petitioner had assailed his conviction and sentence before the Lahore High Court but during arguments before the Court, the counsel representing the petitioner decided not to question the conviction and only prayed for reduction in sentence, which was declined by judgment and order, dated 10-2-2004, from which leave to file appeal is now sought.
2. Learned Advocate Supreme Court representing the petitioner did not advance any argument on merits of the case, and quite rightly so as the petitioner had not questioned his conviction before the High Court and even otherwise, there is overwhelming credible evidence to establish his guilt. The learned counsel, however, stressed for the reduction of sentence, 'urging that the petitioner is a foreigner and that since the Chemical Examiner's report did not specify the percentage of heroin in the powder recovered, the quantum of his sentence cannot be properly assessed.
3. Both the contentions are not relevant for the reduction of sentence. Being a foreigner is not a consideration for determination the quantum of sentence as the penal law of the country is to be applied with same rigor to everyone' subjected to it, regardless of his nationality. As to the second contention, the sentence is to be proportionate to the heroin powder in the form in which it is marketable, regardless of its composition. The petitioner has already been dealt with leniently by the trial Court by sentencing him to ten years imprisonment under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, which carries the maximum punishment of death. For these reasons, no case is made out for granting leave to appeal, which is therefore, declined and the petition dismissed. N.H.Q./J-15/SC Petition dismissed.