Find a Lawyer

Special Criminal Appeal No. 43 of 1983, decided on 29th January, 1984.

---S. 156(1)(8)--Smuggling--Heroin powder--Conviction--Plea for reduction of sentence--Record prima facie not supporting contention of accused that he was not beneficiary of goods in question--Trial Court taking into consideration mitigating circumstances and awarding lenient sentences--Accused not keeping well and remaining under treatment in jail as well as in hospital--Sentence of imprisonment reduced in circumstances.--[Sentence].

Raja Qureshi for Appellant.

Mahmood Iqbal for the State.

Date of hearing: 29th January, 1984.

Appellant was convicted under section 156(1)(8) of the Customs Act, 1969 on his own plea of guilt, in Case No. 106 of 1983, vide judgment, dated 10-12-1983 by Special Judge (Customs and Taxation), Karachi and sentenced to suffer R.I. for 1] years and to pay fine of Rs.30,000 or in default to suffer further R.I. for 3 months, has preferred the above appeal under section 185-F, Customs Act, 1969, read with section 512, Cr. P.C. on the following facts and grounds;

The prosecution case against the appellant briefly is that tin 7-6-1983 at about 1-00 a.m. Senior Preventive Officer Mr. Rais Hyder intercepted the appellant in the International Departure Hall of Karachi Airport when he had completed his briefing formalities. The appellant was bound for Canada by flight No. LH-641. Customs Officer in presence of two Mashirs searched the baggage of the appellant. The search of the suitcase resulted in the recovery of 2 Kgs. of Heroin powder, which was concealed in the inner lining of the fur coat. The Heroin powder was wrapped in eight plastic papers. The Customs Officer seized the Heroin and travelling documents of the appellant and prepared the Mashirnama. He arrested the appellant and served upon him a notice under section 171 of the Customs Act, 1969. He then lodged the F.I.R. After completion of the investigation the appellant had been challaned as mentioned above.

To the charge framed against him under section 156(1)(8) of the Customs Act, 1969 the appellant pleaded guilty and placed himself at the mercy of the Court. He also filed a written statement Exh.2B.

The learned trial Court taking into consideration the plea of guilt of appellant and arguments advanced by learned counsel for appellant for lenient punishment, convicted and sentenced the appellant abovenamed as hereinbefore mentioned and consequently appellant has filed the above appeal, on the grounds mentioned in memo. of appeal, which was admitted for consideration of validity of quantum of sentences awarded to appellant only.

In support of above grounds, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that he relies on cases reported in 1978 P Cr. L J 209 and 633. He further submitted that appellant has remained in custody right from 7-6-1983, the day of his arrest and is not the beneficiary of the goods in question and became victim of friendship and is a young man and not a previous convict. In view of this, sentences awarded to him, on his own plea of guilt, are excessive. He further submitted that appellant has no source of income in Pakistan nor any relative and as such he is not in position to pay heavy fine imposed on him and his present detention in jail, has caused extreme hardship to his family members and as such sentence already undergone by him be considered as sufficient punishment, as appellant is not the beneficiary of goods in question.

Learned Advocate appearing for State on the other hand submitted that appellant has been awarded very lenient punishment and as such this Court has issued suo motu notice for enhancement of sentence to the appellant.

I have carefully considered the above submissions made by the learned Advocates before me and have gone through the impugned judgment.

There is nothing on record to prima facie support the contention of the appellant, that he was not beneficiary of the goods in question. The learned trial Court taking into consideration the mitigating circumstances urged by the learned Advocate for the appellant awarded him lenient sentences. However, the only additional point that has been urged by the learned Advocate for the appellant before me for reduction of sentences awarded to the appellant is, that appellant is not keeping well and has been constantly under medical treatment in jail as well as in Jinnah Hospital. Keeping in view this additional ground I would reduce the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant from 1i years to one year only and maintain the fine of Rs. 30,000 imposed on him and in case of failure to pay the said fine to suffer further R.I. for 3 months, keeping in view the cases cited by the learned Advocate for the appellant.

The above appeal stands disposed of in terms of the above judgment.

M. Y. H. Sentence reduced.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.