Sheikh Hakim Ali, J.--Upon the spy information and on the direction of superior officials of ANF, the Assistant Director of ANF Lahore, Muhammad Riaz Soomro, formed a raiding party along with informer, to intercept the present appellant, who was going to deliver a huge quantity of narcotics substance to his customer. This raiding party cordoned off the area of Caltex Petrol Pump, Jhang Road, Bypass Chowk, Faisalabad, when at about 7:15 a.m., the person, who was driving Hyundai Shahzore Pick Up No, SGJ-3418 of red colour, was stopped near the aforementioned Petrol Pump.
The present appellant, the driver of the vehicle, was apprehended upon the indication of the informer and was interrogated, who disclosed the secret cavity of the vehicle and himself pulled out 153 packets of Charas and 10 packets of Opium, from the hollow space of the vehicle and produced it before the Assistant Director mentioned above. Upon weighing, the opium was found 10 kilograms while the weight of charas was 153 kilograms. After preparing samples from the above noted narcotics substances, the vehicle was taken into possession, appellant was arrested and the case FIR No, 25 of 2002 was got registered with the Police Station of ANF, District Lahore on 30.05.2002, upon the written application of Muhammad Riaz Soomro, Assistant Director, ANF, Lahore. The above noted case was registered under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 (hereinafter called as the "Act").
2. After usual investigation and the examination of the samples from the Forensic Science Laboratory, the report against the appellant for trial was submitted before the learned Judge, Special Court, Control of Narcotic Substances Lahore. The appellant faced the trial before the aforementioned learned Judge in Case No, 18 of 2002 (The State Vs. Muhammad Tariq) and was convicted by the learned Judge on 15.09.2003. The sentence of death and fine of Rs, 500,000/- was imposed upon the appellant, with direction to serve simple imprisonment for two years, in case of default of payment of fine. This judgment was appealed against by the appellant before the Lahore High Court, Lahore through filing of Criminal Appeal No, 1693 of 2003 (Muhammad Tariq Vs. The State), from where the conviction and sentence of the appellant was maintained by dismissal of his criminal appeal. Hence, this appeal after grant of leave on 25.04.2006.
3. Appellant's learned counsel after arguing the case at some length, when found the conviction to have been correctly made, prayed that the sentence of death may be converted to imprisonment for life, which prayer was resisted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of ANF by submitting that appellant was found in possession of a huge quantity of narcotics substance, therefore, the sentence which was awarded by learned trial Court and maintained by the learned High Court below might be maintained.
4. We have considered the arguments and have examined the record of the case. According to Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, four kinds of punishments have been provided for an accused, who is found in possession of narcotics substance exceeding one kilogram. The followings are the four sentences, which have been enumerated in the aforementioned sub-Section 9(c) of the Act:-- i. Death. ii. Imprisonment for life. iii. Imprisonment for a term which may extend to 14 years, and iv. Fine of one million rupees
5. However, in the event of quantity of narcotics substance exceeding 10 kilograms, a limitation has been imposed that the punishment shall not be less than imprisonment for life. The question arises as to why death, imprisonment for life and imprisonment upto 14 years, have been provided in sub- section 9(c) of the Act. In our view, the imposition of punishment has been left upon the discretion of the Court, considering the facts and circumstances of each given case. There may be cases of different types of accused, who may be involved in the commission of the offence of Section 9(c) of the Act, but their role, part, act or omission, character or conduct is such as to call for lesser punishment than of death. The case of first offender, who is not a drug baron can fall in this domain. An accused having no antecedents of any criminal case to his score, he being not an incorrigible, desperate, or hardened criminal, the punishment lesser to the death in such case can serve the purpose of dispensation of criminal justice. In such cases, the extreme penalty of death can be avoided to be handed down to the accused, to grant him a chance to mend his ways in his future life. In the present case, we have not been informed that the appellant was previously involved in any case of such nature.
6. Accordingly, we consider the extreme penalty of death would be too harsh to be imposed upon the appellant. He being a first offender, the death sentence is converted to that of punishment of the imprisonment for life in accordance with the embargo appended in the shape of proviso to Section 9(c) of the Act. However, we maintain the remaining sentence of fine imposed upon the appellant by the learned trial Court along with its punishment in case of default of non-payment of fine. The benefit of Section 382-B of the Cr.P.C. shall be granted to the appellant. With the above noted modification in the sentence, by maintaining the conviction the appeal is dismissed.