2008 PLP 865 (SCMR)
GUL RAEEF KHAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2008 PLP 865 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry and Tassadduq Hussain Jillani, JJ |
| Parties | GUL RAEEF KHAN — 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 2008 PLP 865 (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 2008 PLP 865 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry and Tassadduq Hussain Jillani, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 PLP 865 (SCMR) (GUL RAEEF KHAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Sher Bahadar, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmed, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 23rd August, 2004.
- 4. Raja Abdur Rehman, learned Assistant Advocate-General, present in Court, after having gone through the available record stated that charge has been fully established against the petitioner as prosecution has produced overwhelming incriminating evidence against him. However, he expressed no objection if the quantum of sentence is reduced keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case.
- 5. We have heard both the sides and have also gone through the material available on record. It is true that prosecution has successfully established charge against the petitioner by producing overwhelming incriminating evidence, however, keeping in view the request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and grounds put forward by him for reduction in the quantum of sentence, as well as considering the concession made by learned Assistant Advocate General conviction is maintained, but sentence under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 is reduced from 14 years' R.I. to that of seven years' R.I. with fine of Rs.1,00,000 in default whereof to undergo one year's R.I. with the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C, which has already been extended to him by the learned High Court.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal against the judgment, dated 10-9-2003 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Criminal Appeal No.1631 of 2000).
S. 9(c)
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185 (3)
Quantum of sentence, reduction of
First offender
Accused was convicted and sentenced to 14 years imprisonment
Accused sought reduction in sentence on the ground that he was first' offender and only bread earning person of his family and was also a young man
Counsel for the State had no objection if the quantum of sentence would be reduced
Effect
Prosecution had successfully established charge against the accused by producing overwhelming incriminating evidence
Supreme Court keeping in view the request made by the accused and also considering the concession made by the State counsel, maintained the conviction but reduced the sentence to 7 years imprisonment
Petition was disposed of accordingly. Raja Abdur Rehman, A.A.-G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.
This petition has been filed against judgment, dated 10th September, 2003 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Criminal Appeal No.1631.of 2000.
2. Precisely stating facets of the case are that petitioner faced trial under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Mianwali who vide judgment, dated 30th October, 2000 sentenced him to undergo 14 years' R.I. with fine of Rs.1,00,000 and in default whereof to further undergo six years' R.I. On appeal learned High Court vide impugned judgment maintained the conviction, however, sentence in lieu of non-payment of fine was reduced from six years' R.I. to one year's R.I. with the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. As such instant petition has been filed for leave to appeal.
3. Learned counsel stated that he has been instructed not to press this petition on merits, however, make a request for reduction in the quantum of sentence on the ground that petitioner is first offender, only bread earning person of his family and also a young man.
4. Raja Abdur Rehman, learned Assistant Advocate-General, present in Court, after having gone through the available record stated that charge has been fully established against the petitioner as prosecution has produced overwhelming incriminating evidence against him. However, he expressed no objection if the quantum of sentence is reduced keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case.
5. We have heard both the sides and have also gone through the material available on record. It is true that prosecution has successfully established charge against the petitioner by producing overwhelming incriminating evidence, however, keeping in view the request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and grounds put forward by him for reduction in the quantum of sentence, as well as considering the concession made by learned Assistant Advocate General conviction is maintained, but sentence under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 is reduced from 14 years' R.I. to that of seven years' R.I. with fine of Rs.1,00,000 in default whereof to undergo one year's R.I. with the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C, which has already been extended to him by the learned High Court. Petition stands disposed of with the above modification in the quantum of sentence. M.H./G-37/SC Order accordingly.