P L D 2013 Peshawar 35 (PLP)

SHAH JEHAN KHAN AKHUNDZADA, J.

State through Regional Director Anti-Narcotics Force Khyber Pakhtunkhawa through Deputy Attorney General Pakhtunkhawa has filed this criminal revision petition with the following prayer:-- "it is, therefore, prayed that on acceptance of this revision, the sentence awarded by the trial Court may be modified and the accused/respondents be awarded maximum enhanced sentence provided by section 9(c) CNS Act, 1997".

2. The allegation against the accused-respondents are that they were arrested after being found in possession of contraband heroin weighing 10 Kgs which they were trafficking through Motor Car bearing Registration No.RIV-4433 on 6-7-2011 near Shell Petrol Pump opposite Muslim Insaf Motors G.T. Road Peshawar.

3. After completion of investigation they were put to trial in the Court of Judge Special Court (CNS), Peshawar where they were formally charged on 10-8-2011 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. During the course of trial statements of Muhammad Ayub A.S.-I. and lftikhar Hussain FC were recorded by the trial Court on 12-10-2011 and the remaining prosecution evidence was to be recorded when in the meanwhile the accused-respondents submitted an application on 30-11-2011 through their counsel to allow them to plead guilty to the charge and to this effect their joint statement was recorded by the said Court on the same day which is as under:-- "We all belong to Distt: Swabi and are fast friends. We all belong to poor backgrounds and are unemployed despite attempts to find some reasonable lawful profession. Since we are the only bread earners for our huge families this compelled us to engage in the nefarious activity of drug trafficking. We were incited by one Siyal who showed us green gardens and convinced us that drug trafficking will change our financial status. Due to the above we all decided to enter into a joint venture. Hence we purchased the recovered contraband weighing up to 10 Kgs. by contributing equal share of money. For this purpose we also hired the motor car in question from a bargain center. Now we have learnt a lesson in jail and due to our above said heinous activity our families are suffering badly as there are no one to look after our families. Hence we admit our guilt and plead guilty to the charge however, we are not previous convicts nor involved in such like activities and keeping in view our above prayers we may be dealt with leniently in respect of our sentence".

5. A show cause notice was given to the accused-respondents by the trial Court as to why they should not be convicted on the basis of their plea of guilt, they gave no plausible explanation except, that they being poor persons be dealt with leniently.

6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the relevant aspects of the case in the light of the plead guilty, the learned trial Judge vide his judgment dated 1-12-2010 convicted each of them, under section 9(c) Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and sentenced to eighteen months rigorous imprisonment each with a fine of Rs.30,000 each or in default of payment of fine, to suffer further four months simple imprisonment and in case of default of payment of fine the sentence shall run consecutive to main sentence. However, benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. was extended to them.

7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case with their valuable assistance.

8. The main contention of the learned State counsel is, that since the prosecution has proved its case against the accused-respondents regarding recovery of huge quantity of contraband in the shape of heroine from the car in question in which they all were travelling together, but learned trial Court has awarded them lesser punishment which is contrary to the punishment provided in provisions of section 9(c) Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, therefore, the same be enhanced and maximum sentence be awarded to the accused-respondents. However, this contention of the learned State counsel seems without force because prosecution has not produced any reliable ocular, or circumstantial evidence to establish its charge against them but the accused-respondents themselves, during the trial of the case submitted an application before the trial Court to allow them to plead guilty to the charge and placed themselves at the mercy of the Court in respect of their sentence. It is a common practice that once a person who is involved in a criminal case wants to plead guilty to the charge levelled against him and placed himself at the mercy of the Court and in that eventuality he become a friend of the Court and the court always takes lenient view in respect of his sentence. Since the accused-respondents in the instant case have straightaway placed themselves at the mercy of the trial Court by submitting joint application to allow them to plead guilty coupled with their joint statement, therefore, the learned trial Judge has rightly taken a lenient view in respect of their sentence which is neither illegal nor contrary to the punishment provided in section 9(c) CNSA of 1997. Hence the trial Court has not committed any illegality or material irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction vested in it. Moreover, the learned Law Officer appearing on behalf of the petitioner has also not pressed this revision petition in stricto sensu.

9. Resultantly, we find no substance in the instant revision petition, therefore, the same is hereby dismissed. MWA/357/P Petition dismissed.