' ALI NAWAZ CHOWHAN. J.--- Muhammad Yaqoob alias Mansha son of Muhammad Idrees was convicted under section 9(b) of C.N.S.A., 1997 by the learned Sessions Judge/Judge, Special Court, C.N.S.A., Hafizabad vide judgment, dated 25-2-2002 in case F.I.R. No,399, dated 9-9-2001 registered at Police Station City Hafizabad and sentenced to five years' R.I. With a fine of Rs,30,000 in default whereof he was to further undergo three months' S.I. He was given the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 9-9-2001 at 6-15 p.m. On a spy information Muhammad Yatioob, S.-I. Apprehended Muhammad Yaqoob alias Mansha appellant at' Qatal Garh Chowk and on his personal search opium weighing 180 grams was recovered from his right pocket, out of which 10 grams were separated for chemical analysis. He lodged the complaint Exh.P.A. On the basis of which F.I.R. Exh.P.A. / I was recorded.
3. The prosecution examined as many as five witnesses to prove its case. Mansab Ali P. W.1 deposed about the transmission of the sealed parcel to the office of Chemical Examiner, Lahore.
Nadir Khan H.C./481 recorded formal F.I.R. Exh.P.A./1 on the basis of complaint Exh.P.A. P.W.3 Amjad Asif is the witness of recovery. Arshad Ali, HC P.W.4 deposed about the safe custody of parcels said to contain Charas in the Malkhana. Muhammad Yaqoob, S.-I./complainant/investigator reiterated the story of the F.I.R. The learned prosecutor after tendering the report of Chemical Examiner Exh.P.D in evidence, closed the case for prosecution whereafter the trial Court examined the accused under section 342, Cr.P.C. And he denied all the charges and recovery of opium Exh.P. I .
4. The case of the appellant was that no recovery had been effected from him whereas, the recovery under reference of 180 grams opium was planted. Amjad Asif (P.W.3) stated that the accused was wanted in another case and raids were being conducted at his house of purposes of his arrest. The likelihood .That he may have been arrested in the other case against him and what the appellant was stating had some truth about is there.
5. Anyway we find that against the recovery of a very small quantity of opium which is also consumed by our villagers the learned trial Court has given him a very harsh sentence of five years. He has already undergone some part of it and, therefore, we reduce the sentence to one undergone and reduce the fine to Rs,500 only.
6. This was not a case of such gravity to incur wrath of law as severely as was administered. The learned trial Judge acted with pulse and not with a judicial mind. Sentencing is not totally discretionary. It is structured by the case-law, by the circumstances and also by the perception.
While the social and economic conditions and ground realities help us in appreciating criminology.
A Judge is considered to be an expert in this area and not an arbiter who acts capriciously and beyond proportions. Balances were to be kept even in the matter of crime and punishment. We do not approve hasty and impulsive decisions and expect the subordinate judiciary to take a breath after an order of conviction is made and then to ponder over the quantum of sentence with a cool head while keeping in view the rationale of a crime and principles of sentencing.
7. We would like that a copy of this judgment is sent to learned trial Judge for future guidance wherever the learned trial Judge may be posted and this be done through proper channels .Office to comply.