2018 PLP 2695 (YLR)
The STATE through ANF Gilgit — Appellant Versus NAZIR REHMAT and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2018 PLP 2695 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court |
| Bench Members | Malik Haq Nawaz and Muhammad Umar, JJ |
| Parties | The STATE through ANF Gilgit — Appellant Versus NAZIR REHMAT and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (b) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2018 PLP 2695 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (b) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2018 PLP 2695 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court bench comprising: Malik Haq Nawaz and Muhammad Umar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2018 PLP 2695 (YLR) (The STATE through ANF Gilgit — Appellant Versus NAZIR REHMAT and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Manzoor Hussain Special Prosecutor for ANF Gilgit-Baltistan for Appellant.
- Imtiaz Hussain for Respondents/ Convicts.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 265-E
Scope
Court under S. 265-E, Cr.P.C. was required to explain the charge against the accused
If the accused pleaded guilty, the court was to record the plea and could convict the accused.
S. 9(c)
Possessing and trafficking narcotics
Petition for enhancement of sentence
One kilograms charas was recovered from the possession of each of the accused
Accused persons pleaded guilty to the charge
Trial Court accepted their plea of guilt and convicted them and awarded the punishment of the period already undergone with a fine of Rs. 30,000/
Prosecution had alleged that a lenient view had been taken, which would encourage the likeminded criminals
Record showed that accused persons pleaded guilty at the time of framing of charge
Courts had always taken a lenient view in such like cases, harsh view would not advance the cause of justice
Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, J.
The instant appeal has been filed against the respondents/accused against order/judgment passed by the learned Special Judge, CNSA Gilgit in Sessions case No. 24/2017 whereby the respondents were convicted and awarded the punishment of the period already under gone with a fine of Rs. 30,000/-(thirty thousand).
2. The State being aggrieved from the order/judgment dated 05-05-2017 has challenging the validity/propriety of the impugned judgment/order.
3. The brief facts of the case as reflected in the FIR No. 04/2017 dated 21-03-2017 and in the judgment dated 05-05-2017 are that one kilogram charas was recovered from the possession of each of the respondents. The challan of the case was submitted on 06-04-2017 but the date has wrongly been mentioned as 06.03.2017. The notices were issued to the respondents/accused for 21-04-2017 for their attendance. On 21-04-2017 the learned Special Prosecutor was absent and case was posted on 05-05-2017 for further proceedings. On 05-05-2017 the accused pleaded guilty and the learned trial Court accepted their plea of guilt and convicted them as stated supra. The learned Special Prosecutor for ANF stated that a lenient view has been taken by the learned trial Court which will encourage the likeminded criminals and pray that the same judgment may be set aside and the sentence of respondents be enhanced.
4. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the accused belongs to poor families and no useful purpose will be served if the order of learned trial Court is set aside and the respondents/accused are convicted and committed to judicial custody.
5. We heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record of the case. The accused pleaded guilty at the very outset at the time of framing of charge. We observed that there is a legal defect in the impugned judgment/order, which has not been pointed out by either of the parties. Under section 265(E), Cr.P.C. the Court is required to explain the charge against the accused and if the accused pleads guilty the court shall record the plea and may in his discretion convict him, thereon, which has been not done in the instant case.
6. However, keeping in view that the accused pleaded guilty at the time of framing charge. The Courts of the country have always taken a lenient view in such like cases. A harsh view by this Court will not advance the cause of justice and the judgment of the trial Court except the above technical defects is just and proper and we maintained the same.
7. The Appeal No. 24/2017 is dismissed being meritless. JK/216/GB Appeal dismissed.