2012 PLP 41 (SCMR)
NIAZ AHMED — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2012 PLP 41 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Mian Saqib Nisar and Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, JJ |
| Parties | NIAZ AHMED — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2012 PLP 41 (SCMR)?
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 2012 PLP 41 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Mian Saqib Nisar and Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2012 PLP 41 (SCMR) (NIAZ AHMED — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Anwar-ul-Haque Pannu, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 25th February, 2011.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment dated 8-11-2010 passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore in Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 2010).
S. 9(c)
Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)
Reduction
Accused was convicted under S. 9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and was sentenced to seven years
High Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction reduced the sentence to five years
Accused did not assail the conviction but sought reduction in sentence
Request of accused was acceded to by High Court and his sentence was reduced from seven years to five years
On one hand accused wanted to retain the benefit of the order passed by High Court and on the other hand he had assailed the same
Petition for leave to appeal was barred by eleven days for which no sufficient cause had been propounded by accused in his application for condonation of delay
Leave to appeal was declined. Mazhar Sher Awan, Additional P.-G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.
The petitioner was convicted for the offences under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 in a case registered at Police Station, Saddar Gujrat, by the learned Judge, Special Court (C.N.S.), Gujrat vide judgment dated 24-12-2009. Against the above, the petitioner filed an appeal and at very outset hearing of its, his counsel refrained to argue the case on merits, rather requested for the reduction of the sentence. This request was acceded to by the learned High Court and his sentence was reduced from seven years to five years. Despite having not argued the case on merits and conceding the conviction, the instant petition for leave to appeal against the said judgment has been initiated. It has been argued by the counsel for the petitioner that notwithstanding the above in the cases where there is no evidence for the conviction; or the case strikingly is founded upon mala fide; the act of the counsel shall not be an impediment in the way of the petitioner to seek the decision of his case on merits. In this behalf, reference has been made to the statement of P.W.4 to argue that, petitioner's brother got a criminal case against the investigating officer and the instant F.I.R. was registered in revenge and retaliation of the above.
2. We are not convinced that the aforementioned submission has any force and should be considered as vital ground to establish mala fide on the part of the police for the registration of the present case. Moreover, it has been conspicuously noted that no ground has been set out in the petition about the lack of authority of the counsel who acting on behalf of the petitioner restricted his case only to the reduction of sentence and did not challenge the conviction; the petitioner got the benefit of the above and his sentence was accordingly reduced: it is ludicrous that on the one hand the petitioner wants to retain the benefit of the order and on the other has assailed the same; besides this petition is barred by eleven days for which no 'sufficient cause' has been propounded in the application for the condonation of delay. Resultantly, we find no merit in this petition, which is hereby dismissed. Leave to appeal declined. M.H./N-12/SC Petition dismissed.