Find a Lawyer

Criminal Appeal No. 6 of 1986, decided on 4th May, 1986.

‑‑‑S. 156(1)(8)‑‑Smuggling‑‑Convict a foreigner and friendless, suffering in reputation and career‑‑Appeal only for considering question of appropriateness of sentence‑‑ Offending goods (Heroin) comparatively small in quantity‑‑Sentence of imprisonment and fine reduced.

S.M. Sayedin Zaidi for Appellant.

Nemo for the State.

Date of hearing: 4th May, 1986.

Appellant Said Ahmed is a foreigner and is a Tanzanian. He has been convicted by learned Special Judge (Customs and Taxation), Karachi, vide his judgment, dated 16‑1‑1986 for offence under section 156(1)(8) of the Customs Act, 1969 and sentenced to 1‑1/2 years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.20,000, in default of the payment of fine he shall further undergo R.I. for six months.

Appellant was arrested at Karachi Airport, Terminal No. III International Departure Hall on the night of 4/5‑11‑1985 while he was bound to take flight for Istanbol. From the personal search of the appellant 348 grams of Heroin (brown) was recovered which he had concealed in canvas shoes worn by the appellant at that time. After completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court.

In the trial Court at the time of framing of charge appellant pleaded guilty and was convicted and sentenced as stated above. Since this appeal is against plea of guilt, merits cannot be gone into but this appeal would be competent only to the extent of considering the question of appropriateness of the sentence. Before the trial Court appellant stated that he had come to Pakistan for education purposes but fell prey to undesirable elements and acted on the ill advice, which landed him in this calamity. He further stated that he is a foreigner and friendless and there is no body to took after his family.

Mr. Zaidi, Advocate on behalf of the appellant has pleaded compassionate and humanitarian grounds for reduction of sentence. He has repeated the same grounds which were urged before the trial Court. He has further stated that Heroin recovered from appellant is rather on the low side and is only 348 grams. It is further urged by him that in this case also lenient view should be taken for the reason that appellant is a foreigner and is a friendless person in this country in which he is stranded and also has already suffered a lot in reputation and career. It is further submitted by him that Special Appellate Court has interfered in a number of cases and has reduced the sentences to bring them in conformity with the quantum of Heroin or whatever be the offending goods recovered. My attention has been drawn to one appeal decided by me as of Syed Ikramuddin v. The State Special Criminal Appeal No. 8 of 1985 in which trial Court had sentenced the appellant to one year on recovery of 800 grams of Heroin and fine and 1 had reduced that sentence from one year to nine months. In the instant case there is recovery of 348 grams of Heroin.

For the facts and reasons stated above, I reduce the sentence of the appellant from 1‑1/2 years' R.I. to six months and I also reduce the fine from Rs. 20,000 to Rs.15,000 and reduce fine in payment of default to be made punishable with four months instead of six months. With this modification, the appeal is dismissed.

M.Y.H./S‑9/K 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.