2026 PLP 592 (MLD)

Amjad Ali Sahito, J.

Through this Criminal Appeal, the appellant has assailed the judgment dated 23.08.2024, passed by learned Special Judge CNC / MCTC-I, Hyderabad in Special Case No.119 of 2024 emanating from Crime No.16 of 2024 at PS ANF Hyderabad whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced for the offence under sections 6, 9(2),(3) CNS Act, 1997 (Amended Act, 2022) to undergo R.I. for three (03) years with fine amount of Rs.2,00,000/-; in case of default in payment of fine, he shall undergo S.I. for one (01) year more. However, benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. was extended to the appellant.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant, at the very outset, has stated that the appellant has remained in Jail for sufficient period and still is being dragged in the instant case since 2024; as such, he does not wish to contest this Criminal Appeal and leave the appellant at the mercy of the Court. He states that if this Court while maintaining the conviction reduces the sentence to one he has already undergone, he would not press the Criminal Appeal.

3. On the other hand, learned Special Prosecutor ANF states that the appellant has remained behind the bars for sufficient period and learnt the lesson, therefore, he has no objection if a lenient view is taken against the appellant by dismissing the instant appeal and treating the sentence to one as already undergone.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, learned Special Prosecutor ANF and have gone through the record. It appears that this Criminal Appeal was presented in the month of September, 2024 and is still pending before this Court. However, in order to ascertain the period of conviction the appellant has already served, jail roll was called, which has been received. Per jail roll, appellant has served out his sentence as 09 months and 02 days without remission whereas un-expired portion of his sentence is 03 years, 02 months and 28 days. Since, appellant is not pressing captioned appeal on merits but seeking reduction of his sentence, therefore, we would examine the legality of such plea. Conceptually, punishment to an accused is awarded on the concept of retribution, deterrence or reformation so as to bring peace which could only be achieved either by keeping evils away (criminals inside jail) or strengthening the society by reforming the guilty. There are certain offences, the punishment whereof is with phrase "not less than" while there are other which are with phrase "may extend upto". Thus, it is quite obvious and clear that the law itself has categorized the offences in two categories regarding quantum of punishment. For one category the Courts are empowered to award any sentence while in other category the discretion has been limited by use of the phrase 'not less than'. Such difference itself is indicative that the Courts have to appreciate certain circumstances before setting quantum of punishment in first category which appear to be dealing with those offences, the guilty whereof may be given an opportunity of "reformation" by awarding lesser punishment which how low-so-ever, may be, will be legal. The concept of reformation should be given much weight because conviction normally does not punish the guilty only but whole of his family/dependents too. A reformed person will not only be a better brick for society but may also be helpful for future by properly raising his dependents.

5. The quantum of punishment is not only discretion of the Court, which has to be exercised while considering the circumstances of the case, but also is an independent aspect of Criminal Administration of Justice which, too, requires to be done keeping the concept of punishment in view, therefore, keeping in view, the phrase "may extend upto" and the circumstances explained herein above and also by taking lenient view against appellant as, per counsel, he is the only bread earner of his family, and hold that the appellant has made out his case where he deserves leniency being proposed by the learned counsel. Record shows that no any criminal record of the appellant has been produced by the prosecution as such it is presumed that he is first offender and only 100 grams ICE was recovered from his possession. The appellant has remained in jail and learnt the lesson as he has undergone for sufficient period of the sentence. Furthermore, keeping in view the no objection extended by learned Special Prosecutor ANF as well as looking to the circumstances that the appellant is the only bread earner of his family, we while taking a lenient view reduce the sentence of the appellant from three (03) years to two (02) years. However, as to the fine amount awarded by the trial Court, the same shall remain intact.

6. Instant Criminal Appeal is dismissed with above modification. A copy of this order shall be sent to the trial Court as well as Senior Superintendent Central Prison, Hyderabad for information. JK/M-86/Sindh Appeal dismissed.