2016 P Cr (PLP)
QAMAR-UD-DIN BUTT — Petitioner Versus HOME SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2016 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | QAMAR-UD-DIN BUTT — Petitioner Versus HOME SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2016 P Cr (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 2016 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2016 P Cr (PLP) (QAMAR-UD-DIN BUTT — Petitioner Versus HOME SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nadeem Shibli for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 9(c) & 15
Reduction in quantum of fine and release from jail
Accused who had served out his sentence of imprisonment was confined in jail just because he could not pay the fine of Rs. 500,000 imposed on him by Trial Court
Imposition of fine to the accused was the sole discretion of the court, regulated by the facts and circumstances of a case
Fine of Rs. 500,000 imposed on the accused had been maintained up to the Supreme Court, however such fact may not debar the High Court to reduce the fine
Liberty of an individual was of prime importance for the High Court and just because of non-payment of fine, which the accused could not arrange while in jail, his liberty could not be curtailed
High Court reduced fine imposed on accused from Rs. 500,000 to Rs. 50,000 and in the alternate to spend two months imprisonment
As accused had already spent two months in prison due to default of fine, High court directed to release him immediately from jail
Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
Through this constitutional petition the petitioner has sought his release on parole on the ground that he was convicted, in case FIR No.28 dated 04.09.2003 under sections 9(c)/15, Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 registered at Police Station ANF, Lahore by Judge, Special Court, C.N.S., Lahore vide judgment dated 29.08.2005 and sentenced to 25 years' R.I. with fine of Rs.5,00,000/- and in default whereof to further undergo 1 year's S.I. besides extending the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
2. As per the report submitted by Superintendent, Central Jail, Faislabad the petitioner was to be released on 09.11.2016, but still he is behind the bars as the fine of Rs.5,00,000/- has not been paid.
3. Release of the petitioner sought through this petition is opposed by the learned law officer appearing on behalf of the State.
4. Arguments heard. File perused.
5. It is not denied that petitioner has served out his entire sentence but could not be released on account of non-payment of fine of Rs.5,00,000/-. In the report and parawise comments submitted by respondent No.1/Home Secretary, release of the petitioner on parole had already been denied. However, while going through the file we have noticed that petitioner is confined in the jail just because he could not pay the fine of Rs.5,00,000/-. As per said report dated 15.10.2015, probable date of release of the petitioner is 09.11.2016 if fine is paid and according to the learned counsel for the petitioner based on the said calculation the petitioner was required to be released before two months from now.
6. The imposition of the fine to the convict is a sole discretion of the court, regulated by the facts and circumstances of the case. The fine has been maintained up to the level of Supreme Court when Jail Petitions Nos.202 of 2008 and 309-L of 2008 filed by the petitioner was dismissed but said fact may not debar this court to reduce the fine. The liberty of an individual is of prime importance for this Court and just because of non-payment of fine, which he could not arrange while living in the jail, his liberty cannot be curtailed.
7. For what has been discussed above, we dispose of this petition while reducing the fine of Rs.5,00,000/ to Rs.50,000/- and in alternate to spend two months' S.I. As we have been informed that petitioner has already spent two months in default of the fine, therefore, he shall be immediately released from the jail, if not required in any other criminal case. MWA/Q-8/L Petition allowed.