1999 PLP 423 (MLD)

Rana M. Shamim, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the appellant accepts the charge; that he is a foreign national; that he is victim of circumstances and belongs to a respectable family, therefore, his substantial sentence including fine may be reduced to the period already undergone. Syed Tariq All, learned Standing Counsel for the Federal Government, has contended that narcotic paddlers deserve no concession or grace; that they are menace for the world and that there is no mitigating circumstance in the case in hand for lenient view. He urged that appeal is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. I have heard Rana M. Shamim, learned counsel for the appellant and Syed Tariq Ali, learned Standing Counsel for the Federal Government and have also perused the material placed on record. The conviction is based on the appellant's own plea of guilt, therefore, he is not entitled to challenge his conviction by virtue of bar contained under section 412, Cr.P.C. The offence with which appellant is charged is punishable with 14 years and fine. In the case of Jonathan New House v. The State (1993 PCr.LJ 823) this Court in case punishable under section 156(1)(8) of the Customs Act, 1969, held that accused after having pleaded guilty was convicted on such plea to be treated as a criminal. The accused was sentenced to suffer R.I. for four years with a fine of Rs.200,

000. It was further observed that the offence was punishable with imprisonment for 14 years, therefore, sentence awarded to accused was appropriate and did not call for any interference towards reduction. In that case charas was secured from the possession of one Jonathen New House, an American National. The drug trafficking is hazardous to the public-at-large. The persons and their co-associates, who indulge in such nefarious activities deserve no.1 sympathy and leniency and they are to be dealt with iron hand. In the above referred case my learned brother (late) Qaiser Ahmed Hamidi, J., further observed as under:- "

9. While considering this question in the case of Anthony George v. The State reported in 1992 MLD 2202, this Court again observed as follows:-- It must, however, be remembered that undue leniency far from having a deterrent effect, which is the end and aim of all punishments, tends to result in offences of this nature being repeated or made widely committed. The main object of punishment is not revenge but the protection of society'.

10. Punishment is, before all things deterrent, and the chief end of the law of crime is to make the evil doer an example and a warning to all that are like-minded with him. In the words of Salmond:- If a man is destitute of the affections and social instincts of humanity, the judgment of commonsense upon him is not that he should be treated more leniently than the normal evil doer

Nor the society should cherish him in the hope of making him a good citizen

but that by the rigor of penal discipline his fate should be made to terror and a warning to himself and others. (Jurisprudence, page 119). No leniency on the ground of sympathy should be extended to such a person. Sympathy for such a person means lack of sympathy for drug addicts and their weeping relatives and dependents. If the reasons advanced on behalf of appellant (except few which have already been considered by learned Special Judge) are to be accepted, it would mean that an accused with old parents should not be sent to prison at all. On conviction an accused has to be treated as a criminal. The offence with which the appellant was charged and convicted is punishable with imprisonment for 14 years. The appellant was sentenced to suffer R.I. for four years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,00,000 (Rs. two lacs). The sentence was, therefore, appropriate and does not call for any interference." In yet another case Mrs. Munasingh Arachchige v. The State (1990 PCr.LJ 62), it was observed in a case of smuggling of heroin punishable under section 156(1)(8), of the Customs Act, 1969, as under:- "

5. There is alarming increase of such cases which is mainly due to lenient sentence. It is important to stress that such situation arises, not from the law itself, but from their defective understanding and interpretation. There is a certain amount of tentativeness at all- levels. The sentence should not be so lenient as to make crimes of this nature still lucrative. The foreigners who are involved in such heinous offences are again not entitled to any preferential treatment. The object of awarding sentence is to provide a deterrent effect on others. " The upshot of the above discussion is that merely because the appellant had pleaded guilty and is foreign national did not legally entitle him to any 8 leniency in the matter of sentence in the offence of smuggling of heroin. Trial Court had already taken lenient view of the matter. Consequently, appeal merits no consideration and is dismissed. N.H.Q./C-62/K appeal dismissed.