Criminal Miscellaneous No,1 of 2011.
MUHAMMAD QASIM KHAN, J.---Through the instant application, Rana Shahid Masih has sought suspension of sentence (imprisonment for life with fine of Rs,10,00,000, in default to further undergo six months' simple imprisonment) awarded by learned Judge Special Court, Control of Narcotic Substances, Faisalabad vide judgment dated 27-4-2009 recorded in a case arising out of F.I.R.
No,14 of 2005 dated 17-12-2005 under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 registered at Police Station ANF-Faisalabad, wherein, allegation against the petitioner was of possessing 100-kilogram of charas, at the time of raid and subsequent arrest.
2. It has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that appeal of the petitioner could not be decided despite lapse of two years and delay in the decision of the appeal cannot be attributed to the petitioner. The learned counsel further argued that considering the heavy backlog, the appeal of the petitioner is also not likely to be fixed and decided in the near future, as such the learned counsel pleaded that in view of section 426(1-A)(c), Cr.P.C. The petitioner has become entitled for the suspension of sentence and release on bail, on statutory ground of delay in decision of the appeal.
3. Conversely the learned Special Prosecutor representing Anti-Narcotic Force assisted by learned Deputy Prosecutor-General, after opposing the case of the petitioner on merits, strenuously argued that proviso of section 426(1-A)(c), Cr.P.C. Specially excludes the persons who are hardened, desperate or dangerous criminals, and present petitioner being involved in transportation of a huge quantity of narcotic (Charas) is covered by the phrase "dangerous criminal", as such is not entitled for the grant of bail, or suspension of his sentence on statutory ground alone.
4. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and perused the available record.
5. So far as merits of the case are concerned, we would not like to comment much, as any observation at this stage, may cause prejudice to either of the parties at the time of final hearing of the main appeal. However, the moot point in this case is, whether the petitioner, who is involved in the offences covered by Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, could be termed as "dangerous criminal" and while declaring him so, could he be denied the benefit of section 426(1-A)(c), Cr.P.C.
6. The word "dangerous" used in proviso to section 426(1-A)(c), Cr.P.C. Should be construed in its ordinary sense, which means horrible effects of an offence against society at large. Needless to mention here that a distinction is to be made between an offence which is committed against an individual like theft/injury and an offence, which. Is directed against the society as a whole for the purposes of bail. The effects of smuggling and unlawful selling of narcotics are disastrous on the moral, social fabric of the society and accused of such offences had the potential of destroying the health and family life of a large number of people in addition to bringing a bad name for the country. The heroin/charas (or other substance covered by (CNSA), were declared dangerous drugs in 1930 basically on account of their' dangerous effects on society. Meaning of word "dangerous" can be ascertained in the light of the conduct of accused at the time he was arrested, his previous conduct, nature of offence coupled with its effect on society, his betrayal with reference to moral duties. If the word "dangerous criminal" is to be considered as previous convict, then the word "dangerous criminal" used in proviso of section 426(1-A)(c), Cr.P.C. Would become completely redundant and meaningless. Therefore, opinion on this point could be formed upon the material available in case under trial as well any other material, which may be produced by the prosecution. In an earlier case "MUHAMMAD ASGHAR v. THE STATE" (1992 M LD 1554), this Court had already declared that persons dealing in large quantity of heroin could safely be termed as "dangerous", and while holding so, accused despite expiry of statutory period, was refused bail.
7. A Full Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, in the case "THE STATE through Deputy Director Anti-Narcotics Force, Karachi v. MOBIN KHAN" (2000 SCM R 299), has held that "Third proviso to subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Cannot be pressed into service in view of subsection (1) of section 51 read with Cls. (b) and (c) of section 9 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, in a case in which the quantity of narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or controlled substance exceeds one kg. And which may entail, inter alia, death sentence."
8. For what has been discussed above, we have no doubt in our mind to hold that the petitioner, who has been convicted for an offence which was likely to destroy the fabric of society. Such narcotic peddlers commit these crimes not only consciously but also in a well-planned manner, irrespective of its hazardous impact on the society. Therefore, seen from any angle, the petitioner can be considered a "dangerous criminal", within the meaning of Ist proviso to section 426(1-A)(c), Cr.P.C., and as such, he cannot claim benefit of the said provison of law. The instant petition, being devoid of any merit, is accordingly dismissed.