Find a Lawyer

Criminal Petition No. 150 of 1985, decided on 13th April, 1985.

(Against the judgment and order, dated 10th March, 1985 of the Lahore High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 151 of 1985).

‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Drugs Act (XXIII of 1940), S. 27‑‑Petitioner's conviction based on his own plea of guilty‑‑Having admitted that drug recovered from him was sub‑standard, declined to produce any evidence in defence‑‑No interference called for‑‑Leave to appeal refused.

A Ch. Muhammad Ashraf Azeem, Advocate Supreme Court assisted by S. Wajid Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondent.

Date of hearing 13th April,1985

On a complaint filed by the Drug Inspector and on his own plea of guilty the petitioner was convicted under section 27 of the Drugs Act and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000 or in default thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of five months. He appealed against his conviction. The High Court dismissed it .on 10th March, 1985. Hence this petition seeking leave to appeal.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in fact the petitioner had not confessed guilt; that the offence remained unproved and that whatever statement the petitioner made was not given with the awareness that he was making a statement before the Court due to the informality of the atmosphere and the premises where Drug Court was functioning. According to the learned counsel, the admission did not amount to an offence and hence the conviction could not be recorded. In any case according to the learned counsel, it was a case where a sentence of fine alone would have sufficed.

3. As regards the statement actually made by the petitioner, the Drug Court has made the following note of it in the judgment:

"The accused has been charged by us today. He has pleaded guilty to the charge. He does not want to produce any evidence in defence. He has admitted that the article in question was found to be substandard. He has however prayed for a lenient-view claiming that he is a poor man."

The learned counsel for the petitioner did not file a copy of the statement which the accused made in the Drug Court but did produce one at the hearing. We find from it that the Drug Court has correctly noted its contents. Not only the petitioner pleaded guilty, he also admitted that the drug recovered from him was substandard and declined to produce any evidence. There is no reason why after the complaint and his appearance in the Drug Court he should remain unaware that he was making a statement in Court in proceedings which may result in his conviction and sentence. This being a case of conviction and sentence on his own plea of guilty, no interference is called for and hence leave to appeal is refused.

M.I. Leave refused.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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