Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Criminal Appeal No.239 of 1985, decided on 9th August, 1987.
---S.412--Drugs Act (XXXI of 1976), Ss.23(1)(c) & 27--Accused found selling drugs without sale-licence, convicted and sentenced after pleading guilty to the charge--No illegality in proceedings of trial or award of sentence pointed out--Conviction and sentence maintained.
Muhammad Zahid Abbasi for Appellant.
Javed Shaukat for the State.
Date of hearing: 9th August, 1987.
b-The appellant, Ghazanfar Rehman was convicted and sentenced till the rising of the court plus a fine of Rs.10,000 'and in default to undergo further ten months' simple imprisonment vide the judgment of , the Punjab Drug Court, Lahore dated 20-3-1985. The appellant has challenged his conviction and sentence by filing this appeal before this Court.
2. Brief' facts of the case are that Malik Haq Nawaz, Inspector of Drugs, Gujranwala inspected the business premises of Messrs A1-Shifa Dispensary, Lahore Road, Pindi Bhattian. District Gujranwala on 27-12-1982. During the inspection, the said Inspector took into possession a large number of allopathic drugs such as Entero Strep Suspension, Primex Suspension, etc. mentioned in the recovery memo dated 27-12-1982. The Drugs Inspector demanded from the appellant the drugs sale licence in respect of the aforesaid drugs, but the appellant failed to do so. Later on the Drugs Inspector moved an application before the Provincial Quality Control Board, Lahore for permission to prosecute the appellant and accordingly vide their memo. No. SO (DRUGS) PQCB 844/83 (157), dated 25-4-1983 the aforesaid Board recommended the case for the prosecution of the appellant with the result that this complaint against the appellant was registered under section 28(1)(c) of the, Drugs Act, 1976 which offence is punishable under the provisions contained in section 27 thereof.
3. The appellant appeared before the Punjab-Drug Court, Lahore where he pleaded guilty to the charge. He also made a statement that he does not want to produce any evidence in defence. The appellant further disclosed that the drugs mentioned in the recovery memo were recovered from the shop for which he could not produce the drugs sale licence.
4: The learned Punjab Drug Court, Lahore was convinced to take lenient view of the offence because he had made a confessional statement before the Court and as such, as stated earlier, he was sentenced till the rising of the court and was fined a sum of Rs.10,000.
5. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. The appellant was convicted and sentenced after he pleaded guilty to the charge. Under section 412 Cr.P.C. no appeal was competent where an accused person is convicted after pleading guilty to the charge. In such a case an appeal could be filed only to challenge "the extent or legality of the sentence". The learned counsel was not able to point out any illegality in the sentence awarded to the appellant in the impugned judgment. In our view the sentence awarded to the appellant was not excessive. Rather it was lenient. We are, however, not inclined. to consider enhancement of the sentence in the absence of any revision on behalf of the State. The' learned counsel for the appellant was not able to point out any illegality in the proceedings of the trial. We, therefore, find no merits in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. The conviction and sentence of the appellant is maintained. He shall deposit the entire amount of fine within 30 days of this order failing which he will surrender to undergo imprisonment in default of payment of the fine.
S.G.D./G-85/L Appeal dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer