Find a Lawyer

STATE THROUGH THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (LAW) versus MUJAHID NASEEM LODHI

95 9 hero heroin possession ?? Evidence Resolved trial Trial confession during trial - Impact - conviction, - The accused was arrested while 3 1kg of heroin was in his possession, while the co-accused confiscated 900 grams. Heroin trial found in both the accused and the accomplices confessed to their guilt during the trial and the accused also expressed remorse over his conduct - the trial court sentenced the accused to three years in prison, while the accused was sentenced to four. Sentenced to months imprisonment. OK - The state drug court challenged the conviction passed by the trial court against the accused and according to the sentencing guidelines for drug paraphernalia reported in the case of Ghulam Murtaza and one more state (PLD 2009 Lahore 362); In this case, the High Court has observed that in a particular case, a court having certain qualities related to the issue of punishment may be relinquished to certain standards and standards, but in all such cases it is relevant. The court will be bound by the record. Reasons for such leave the In the present case, the trial court recorded the reasons for the sentence against the accused and referred to the sentencing instruction given in Ghulam Murtaza and another v. State (PL). D. 2009 Lahore 362) The rial trial court observed that the accused had repented before the court in addition to making a confession offense and repented and repented with the assurance of dealing with drug addiction in the future. The conviction was committed before the court and on the basis of such confession, he was also punished by a sentence which was committed by Ghulam Murtaza and H and bmqab

P L D 2017 Supreme Court 671

Present: Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, ACJ and Dost Muhammad Khan, J

STATE through the Deputy Director (Law), Regional Directorate, Anti-Narcotics Force—Petitioner

versus

MUJAHID NASEEM LODHI—Respondent

Criminal Petition No. 32 of 2017 and Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 54 of 2017, decided on 5th July, 2017.

(Against the order dated 30.11.2016 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Criminal Appeal No. 1501 of 2015)

Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997) —

—5. 9—Possession of heroin—Reappraisal of evidence—Admission of guilt during trial—Effect—Sentence, reduction in—Accused was apprehended while in possession of 3.1 kilograms of heroin, while the co-accused was found in possession of 900 grams of heroin—Both accused and co-accused admitted their guilt during trial and the accused also showed remorse for his actions—Trial Court sentenced the accused to three years' imprisonment with fine, whereas the coaccused was sentenced to four months' imprisonment with fine—State through the Anti-Narcotics Force challenged the quantum of sentence passed against the accused by the Trial Court and sought enhancement of the same in accordance with the sentencing guidelines for narcotics substances laid down in the case of Ghulam Murtaza and another v. The State (PLD 2009 Lahore 362); held, that in the said case the High Court had observed that in a particular case carrying some special features relevant to the matter of sentence a Court may depart from the norms and standards prescribed but in all such cases the Court concerned shall be obliged to record its reasons for such departure—In the present case, the Trial Court had recorded reasons for passing a sentence against the accused and made a departure from the sentencing guidelines provided in Ghulam Murtaza and another v. The State (PLD 2009 Lahore 362)—Trial Court had observed that the accused had made a confession before the court besides expressing remorse and v repentance with an assurance not to deal with narcotics in future—Coaccused had also made a confession before the Trial Court and on the basis of such confession he was also awarded a sentence which departed from the sentencing guidelines provided in Ghulam Murtaza and another v. The State (PLD 2009 Lahore 362) but the State had not sought enhancement of his sentence—Reasons recorded for passing a reduced sentence against the accused and for making a departure from the sentencing guidelines provided in Ghulam Murtaza and another v. The State (PLD 2009 Lahore 362) were found to be proper by the Supreme Court in the peculiar circumstances of the present case. [pp. 673, 674] A & B

The State through Director-General, Anti-Narcotics Force v. Abdul Jabbar alias Jabbara (Criminal Appeal No.254 of 2014 = 2017 SCMR 1213 and Ghulam Martaza and another v. The State PLD 2009 Lah. 362 ref.

Ameer Zeb v. The State PLD 2012 SC 380 approved.

Raja Inaam Ameen Minhas, Special Prosecutor, Anti-Narcotics Force Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record M.Tariq, Deputy Director (law) for Petitioner.

Respondent in person.

Syed Nayyab Hussain Gardezi, Assistant Attorney-General for Pakistan on Courts’ Notice.

Date of hearing: 5th July, 2017.

best law firms from Bhera lawyer