P L D 2009 Supreme Court 383 (PLP)
SAIF-UR-REHMAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | P L D 2009 Supreme Court 383 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday and Sarmad Jalal Osmany, JJ |
| Parties | SAIF-UR-REHMAN — 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 P L D 2009 Supreme Court 383 (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 P L D 2009 Supreme Court 383 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday and Sarmad Jalal Osmany, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 2009 Supreme Court 383 (PLP) (SAIF-UR-REHMAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Aslam Uns, Advocate Supreme Court for petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- 2. The learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner, submitted at the very outset, that in view of the confession made by Saif -ur-Rehman petitioner which confession had been recorded by the competent Magistrate at Peshawar under section 164 of the-Cr.P.C. he would not contest the conviction recorded against him and consequently prayed only for reduction in the quantum of punishment awarded to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was only a carrier who had accepted to transport the said huge quantity of narcotics for some monetary compensation.
- 3. Having examined the record, we find that the choice exercised by the learned Advocate Supreme Court for not contesting the conviction recorded against the petitioner was not un-founded as, in addition to the said confessional statement made by him, sufficient evidence existed on the record to sustain the said conviction recorded against him.
- 4. We have pondered over the prayer of the learned advocate Supreme Court vis-a-vis the reduction in quantum of punishment but find it difficult to grant the same. Acceding to such a request would amount to laying down a law that a person who commits a crime not for any personal motive or reasons but agrees to the same only on hire and for some monetary reward, would always be entitled to compassion, sympathy, mercy and could consequently demand leniency in the matter of quantum of punishment. We are afraid, we cannot be a party to creating such a law which would amount to encouraging and fact licensing the practice of hired assassins, hired dacoits, hired robbers and hired criminal of other sorts. In fact we would, on the contrary, declare that a hired offender was not entitled to any leniency or sympathy in the matter of quantum of punishment and such are the people who deserved to be dealt with an iron hand and deserved the same kind of treatment which would be warranted in the case of any other criminal, if not stricter and harsher treatment.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 9(c)
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)
Reduction in sentence, refusal of
Accused was sentenced to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.5,00,000 on account of recovery of huge quantity of narcotics from different cavities of the Jeep driven by him
Sufficient evidence existed on record to sustain to conviction of accused and defence counsel had consequently prayed only for reduction in his sentence on the ground that he was only a carrier, who had accepted to transport the said huge quantity of narcotics for some monetory compensation
Held, acceding to such a request would amount to laying down a law that a person who commits a crime not for any personal motive or reasons, but agrees to the same only on hire and for some monetary reward, would always be entitled to compassion, sympathy, mercy and could consequently demand leniency in the matter of quantum of punishment
Court cannot be a party to creating such a law which would amount to encouraging and in fact licensing the practice of hired assassins, hired dacoits, hired robbers and hired criminals of other sorts
Supreme Court, on the contrary, would declare that a hired offender was not entitled to any leniency or sympathy in the matter of quantum of punishment and such people deserved to be dealt with an iron hand and deserved the same kind of treatment which would be warranted in the case of any other criminal, if not stricter and harsher treatment
Leave to appeal was refused to accused accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, J.
Saifur-ur-Rehman petitioner was tried for having been found in possession of 259 kgs. of CHARAS PUKHTA; 20 kgs. CHARAS GARDA and 5.500 kgs. of OPIUM which quantity of narcotics had been recovered from different cavities of the Jeep being driven by him which cavities had been especially created for the purpose. As a result of the trial which ensued, a Special Court at Peshawar found him guilty of the charge; convicted him under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and punished him with sentence of imprisonment of life and a fine of Rs.5,00,000 or five years' S.I. in default of payment of fine. His appeal before the Peshawar High Court failed which has brought him to this Court through Jail Petition No.212 of 2007.
2. The learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner, submitted at the very outset, that in view of the confession made by Saif -ur-Rehman petitioner which confession had been recorded by the competent Magistrate at Peshawar under section 164 of the-Cr.P.C. he would not contest the conviction recorded against him and consequently prayed only for reduction in the quantum of punishment awarded to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was only a carrier who had accepted to transport the said huge quantity of narcotics for some monetary compensation.
3. Having examined the record, we find that the choice exercised by the learned Advocate Supreme Court for not contesting the conviction recorded against the petitioner was not un-founded as, in addition to the said confessional statement made by him, sufficient evidence existed on the record to sustain the said conviction recorded against him.
4. We have pondered over the prayer of the learned advocate Supreme Court vis-a-vis the reduction in quantum of punishment but find it difficult to grant the same. Acceding to such a request would amount to laying down a law that a person who commits a crime not for any personal motive or reasons but agrees to the same only on hire and for some monetary reward, would always be entitled to compassion, sympathy, mercy and could consequently demand leniency in the matter of quantum of punishment. We are afraid, we cannot be a party to creating such a law which would amount to encouraging and fact licensing the practice of hired assassins, hired dacoits, hired robbers and hired criminal of other sorts. In fact we would, on the contrary, declare that a hired offender was not entitled to any leniency or sympathy in the matter of quantum of punishment and such are the people who deserved to be dealt with an iron hand and deserved the same kind of treatment which would be warranted in the case of any other criminal, if not stricter and harsher treatment.
5. Having thus examined all aspects of the matter, we find no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed. Leave refused. N.H.Q./S-16/S Leave refused.