2014 PLP 1173 (YLR)
SIKANDAR ALI — Appellant Versus The STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2014 PLP 1173 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Sindh |
| Bench Members | Sajjad Ali Shah and Shoukat Ali Memon, JJ |
| Parties | SIKANDAR ALI — Appellant Versus The STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2014 PLP 1173 (YLR)?
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 2014 PLP 1173 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Sindh bench comprising: Sajjad Ali Shah and Shoukat Ali Memon, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2014 PLP 1173 (YLR) (SIKANDAR ALI — Appellant Versus The STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Shamsuddin Khushik for Appellant.
- Amjad Ali Sahito, SSP for ANF for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 2nd October, 2013.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 9(c)
Possessing and trafficking narcotics
Sentence, reduction in
No ground for interference with sentence was made out and the only point for consideration was its appropriateness
Imprisonment of four years was upon recovery of opium exceeding one kilogram up to two Kilograms and fine of Rs.8000
Recovery was 1050 grams, a little more than one Kilogram, whereas the punishment for two Kilograms of opium was four years
Punishment for 1050 grams should be little more than two years
While dismissing appeal, sentence was modified to two and half years with fine of Rs.5000. Ghulam Murtaza's case PLD 2009 Lah. 362 ref. Ameer Zeb's case PLD 2012 SC 380 rel.
Judgment & Decree
SAJJAD ALI SHAH, J.
The appellant through instant appeal has impugned the judgment dated 3-7-2012 passed by I-Additional Sessions Judge as Special Judge C.N.S. Hyderabad, whereby the learned Judge upon finding the appellant guilty of an offence under section 9(c) of C.N.S Act, 1997 convicted the appellant and sentenced him to undergo R.I for four years with fine of Rs.8000. After arguing the matter at length, learned counsel for the appellant contends that he would not press this appeal in case this Court while maintaining the conviction reduces the sentence and modify it in terms of the schedule provided by the Lahore High Court in Ghulam Murtaza's case (PLD 2009 Lahore 362). Counsel has pointed out that on recovery of opium exceeding one (1) K.G up to two (2) K.G desirable punishment prescribed is R.I for four years and fine of Rs.8000. Counsel says that since the recovery of opium was only 1050 grams therefore, the sentence be reduced from four (4) years to two (2) years. Mr. Amjad Ali Sahito learned Special Prosecutor for A.N.F. in view of the fact that the judgment in Ghulam Murtaza's case has been upheld by the Supreme Court is not in a position to dispute the legal proposition. After hearing the appeal at length we are convinced that no ground for interference is made out and the only point for consideration is the appropriateness of sentence. Since the Lahore High Court's judgment in the case of Ghulam Murtaza referred by the counsel for the appellant has been upheld by the Supreme Court in the case of Ameer Zeb (PLD 2012 SC 380) therefore, we have no hesitation to follow the yardshick of sentence provided therein. Perusal of the schedule reflects that imprisonment of four years upon recovery of opium exceeding one kilogram up to two kilograms and fine of Rs.8000 and in default S.I. for four months and fifteen days has been provided. Since the recovery admittedly was 1050 grams a little more than one kilogram whereas the punishment for two kilograms of opium is four years therefore, in our opinion, the punishment for 1050 grams should be little more than two years. We therefore, while dismissing this appeal modify the sentence to two and half years and fine of Rs.5000 and in default S.I. for two months and fifteen days. With this modification of the sentence we dismiss the appeal and maintained the conviction. HBT/S-15/Sindh Sentence reduced.