' TARIQ PARVEZ KHAN, C.J.--- Two appellants Mst. Rahat Bibi and Mst. Parveen, both convicted and sentenced by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Judicial Special Court, Peshawar. They have been awarded life imprisonment each and to pay a fine of Rs,one lac each or in default to suffer one year's S.I. They have been extended benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
2. Charge against the two appellants is that they were travelling in a motorcar with their co- accused Zafar Iqbal and from the car driven by Zafar Iqbal, huge quantity of narcotics comprising of 73 Kgs. Charas and 22 Kgs. Opium was recovered. The recovered narcotics were concealed in the luggage boot of the vehicle.
3. The trials of the present appellants and that of their co-accused were separated for reasons that the two appellants were found to be juvenile; therefore, they were separately tried. Judgment, dated 19-1-2005 has awarded them the sentence given above.
4. We have gone through the evidence of the prosecution comprising of Zahidullah I.H.C. (P.W.1), Nisar Ahmad Khan, S.H.O. (P.W.2) who is lodger of the F.I.R. And has taken into possession the contraband and has also conducted complete investigation, followed by statement of Shafiur Rehman (P.W.3) who is witness to the recovery of the narcotics.
' No defence evidence was produced by the two appellants though they were so asked in their statements recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C.
5. Same set of evidence has been believed by us in Criminal Appeal No,122 of 2005 decided on 16- 5-2006 in respect of Co-accused of the two appellants. Evidence of the prosecution though comprises of police officials but there is no iota of evidence, not even suggestion, that the two appellants were falsely implicated in the case.
6. Learned trial Judge though conscious of the fact that the two ladies are juvenile but because of huge quantity of Charas and opium, declined to extend them the benefit of Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000.
7. There is no dispute that the two appellants are juvenile because at the time of framing of charge, age of Mst. Rahat Bibi is recorded as 16/17 years and of Mst. Parveen as 18/19 years. Similarly, they have been so recorded in the statements under section 342, Cr.P.C. Which were recorded on 20-11- 2004 i,e, after one year of the occurrence.
8. Still to satisfy ourselves, we ordered that the two appellants be produced before the Court and our own observation from the facial appearance, has confirmed that the two appellants are below 18 years of age.
9. Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 which was promulgated on 1st July, 2000 carries the preamble that the same is promulgated to provide protection to the children involved in criminal litigation and to rehabilitate them in the society. Section 11 of the Ordinance (ibid) empowers the Judge/Court to release on probation a child found to have committed the offence. Somewhat similar legislation is Ordinance XLV of 1960 (The Probation of Offenders Ordinance, 1960), where there is some clog on the powers of the Court as enumerated in its section 5 which inter alia contains that a female convicted for any offence other than for offence punishable with death may be released on probation whereas section 11 of the Ordinance of 2000 gives absolute discretion.
10. The general principle of criminal jurisprudence is that all Criminal Statutes shall be interpreted in favor of the offenders and that benefit of any discretionary powers cannot be withheld.
11. If the two appellants are kept in jail for life sentence, by the time they come out from jail they would have even crossed their marriageable age and even if married, but without issues, would come out of jail when they would be of middle age. Where a law authorizes the Court to extend benefit of release on probation and in particular where the two ladies/appellants in the instant case does not appear to be real beneficiary and that they have been used in the business of drug trafficking, we are of the view that while maintaining their conviction and sentence, we direct that the two appellants be released on probation forthwith. They shall be kept on probation for a period of 5 years from today.
12. Since it will be difficult for the two appellants to arrange for guardian or respectable person who shall be entrusted the ladies for observation under probation, we direct the learned trial Judge that he shall summon the two appellants from jail and after obtaining sufficient security and after satisfying himself about antecedents of person taking the responsibility of their future activities for a period of five years shall issue order of their release. The amount of fine imposed upon the two appellants is reduced to Rs,1,000 each or in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one week S.I.