SHAHID HAMEED DAR, J.---The petitioner feels that the respondents, Mst. Razia Kausar alias Rani and Nisar Hussain had not been lawfully dealt with nor handed down the sentence, ought to have been awarded to them by the learned trial court/Judge, Special Court (CNS), Rawalpindi, albeit they pleaded guilty to the charge on 1.6.2009 for an offence under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years each and fine of Rs,50,000/- each or in default thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for two months each with benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C., during his trial in case FIR No,6/2007, dated 1.2.2007, under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, registered at police station ANF Rawalpindi. The petitioner filed the titled revision petition seeking for an amendment to and enhancement of the sentence of the respondent-convicts in accordance with the law.
2. The facts germane to the institution of this petition are that Abid Zulfiqar, Assistant Director/Incharge, police station ANF Attock, while heading a contingent of fellow ANF officials was present at GT road, near lqbal Shaheed Toll Plaza, Attock, at about 5.30 a.m. On 1.2.2007, when he received a spy information that Nisar Hussain and Mst. Razia Kausar, the drugpushers/smugglers would smuggle heavy quantity of contraband-charas from the KPK through Toyota Hiace No,K- 2335/Peshawar into Punjab; on receipt of this information, they kept vigil on all the Toyota-branded Hiace vehicles coming from Peshawar; it was at about 6.00 a.m. When above-noted vehicle appeared on the scene, which was signalled to stop and it halted there; a couple, occupying front seat of the Hiace had a black-colour travel-bag in their laps; they jointly claimed the ownership thereof; on asking of the menin-uniform, both of them alighted the vehicle along with their bag; the woman introduced herself as Mst. Razia Kausar alias Rani (respondent No,1) and the male, as Nisar Hussain (respondent No,2); their travel-bag was checked and found packed with thirteen (13) packets of contraban-charas, each packet weighed 1250 grams, aggregate whereof read as 16.250 kilograms; the complainant-AD segregated ten grams each from every packet, rendered them into a sealed parcel for transmitting to the office of Chemical Examiner for its chemical analysis; rest of the bulk was also made into a sealed parcel; their personal search yielded recovery of cash and some other articles, which were also seized by him through separate memos. Of recovery. The.
Complaint (fard-bayan) prepared by the complainant-AD led to registration of case FIR No,6/2007 (supra). On completion of investigation, challan under section 173, Cr.P.C. Was submitted against respondents Nos.1 and 2 before the trial court, which took cognizance of the matter and indicted them accordingly, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed a trial; midway through their trial, when prosecution evidence was in progress, the respondents-accused professed their guilt on 1.6.2009, which persuaded the learned trial court to convict and sentence both of them in mentioned terms, vide the impugned judgment, the same day. Hence, the instant petition.
3. Learned counsel for respondent No,2 while referring to Mst. Fazeelat Bibi's case (PLD 2013 SC 361) has straightaway submitted that the instant revision petition is not maintainable as none of the provisions of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 permitted institution thereof; the petitioner-ANF might have filed an appeal against the impugned judgment under section 48(1) of the said Act and filing of criminal revision by it was misconceived, therefore, liable to be dismissed.
4. Learned Special Prosecutor for ANF/p etitioner did not look much enthusiastic about the fate of this revision petition and he made the submission that it might be converted into an appeal and allowed as such, for, the impugned judgment was patently illegal, having been made by the learned trial court in gross violation of the requirement of section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, which is clamped with the proviso that if quantity of the contraband exceeded ten kilograms, the punishment should not be less than imprisonment for life.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is observed that impugned judgment appears to have been passed in a reckless manner, without caring for the law on the subject, which reads as under:- "9. Punishment for contravention of sections 6, 7 and 8. - Whoever contravenes the provisions of section 6, 7 or 8 shall be punishable with -
(a) imprisonment which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both, if the quantity of the narcotic drug, psychotropic substance or controlled substance is one hundred grams or less;
(b) imprisonment which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine, if the quantity of the narcotic drug, psychotropic substance or controlled substance exceeds one hundred grams but does not exceed one kilogram;
(c) death or imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for a term which may extend to fourteen years and shall also be liable to fine which may be upto one million rupees, if the quantity of the narcotic drug, psychotropic substance or controlled substance exceeds the limits specified in clause (b).
Provided that if quantity exceeds ten kilogram the punishment shall not be less than imprisonment for life. "
The afore-noted proviso entails the restriction of awarding imprisonment for life to an accused, in case he possessed a contraband-substance exceeding ten kilograms. The quantity of the contraband recovered herein certainly exceeds ten kilograms, being 16.250 kilograms. The impugned judgment being inherently defective looks fallible, but for the poor and deplorable show by the prosecution, as they filed the instant revision petition more than sixteen months after the pronouncement of the impugned judgment and about a year after they obtained attested copy of it on 28.10.2009 or 28.11.2009, the relevant dates of completion of copy of the judgment and that of its delivery to the petitioner, having been badly interpolated to read 28,10.2009 or 28.11.2009. It showed that the prosecution awoke from a deep slumber to file this petition, probably for silencing the critics, who could none else be than their high-ups. Could delay caused in filing this petition be deemed fatal to it, is a question which might not necessarily be answered in the affirmative, as the general rule of practice is that no period of limitation has been prescribed under section 439, Cr.P.C. Nor any specific number of days as in case of an appeal, has been fixed where after a revision will not formally be entertained. It may, therefore, not be logical to take out few from the general rule of practice relating to limitation unless there was some exceptional circumstances governing a particular case. Of course., no limitation, as mentioned above, has been prescribed for filing a criminal revision but it has to be within the reasonable time-limit, which depends upon the circumstances of each case. Herein, the petitioner was obviously the most relevant person to worry about the outcome of the cake right from the beginning but he hardly showed any. Had he been vigilant enough and on his toes, he would have come to know about its result well in time. He appeared to have slept over the matter and days ticked away one by one only due to his lethargic attitude. The respondents' release from the prison is a year's old matter now. All this shows that the petitioner took the matter too lightly and did not bother to challenge the respondents sentence within reasonable time. The delay caused is massive and the petitioner's learned counsel remained evasive, as to the said query of the court. The filing of this petition has certainly gone past the boundaries of reasonableness, in terms of time-limit, hence, its maintainability is seriously under clouds.
6. It was the main argument of the learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 and 2 that the trial court's proceedings, as conducted by it on 1.6.2009 could not be challenged through a revision petition, which has not been meticulously met with by the petitioner's side except for submitting that the revision so filed might be converted into an appeal, as envisaged by section 48(1) of the Act (ibid).
There might have been a stage in taking to the said recourse, had the petitioner not shown sluggishness of the worst degree as elaborated above. An appeal under section 48(1) of the Act
(ibid) against the judgment of conviction/ sentence of the learned trial court can be filed within a certain time-limit, as envisaged by THE FIRST SCHEDULE (section 3), Second Division-Appeals, of the Limitation Act, 1908. The limitation provided by the statute for filing an appeal against conviction, recorded by the trial court, may be extended and the delay caused, if any, be condoned under the .Relevant provisions of the Act (ibid), provided the attending circumstances of the case warranted so. Here, in the instant case, the time consumed by the petitioner in fetching attested copy of the impugned judgment and that exhausted in filing the titled-petition spans over a year, wherefor they have no plausible explanation to offer. The delay caused is too massive and unreasonable to permit conversion of this petition into an appeal. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard is nothing but a childish wish, hardly finding any support from the law itself.
7. The statute, Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, does provide any room for filing a revision petition against an order or judgment of the trial court, may it be that of a sessions court or a special court dealing with the cases there under. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan. Has laid down in The State through Mehmood Ahmad Butt, Deputy Director, Regional Directorate, Anti- Narcotic Force, Lahore V. Mst. Fazeelat Bibi (PLD 2013 SC 361) that the provisions of section 48(1) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 clearly and unambiguously contemplated an appeal to a high court against an order passed by a special court comprising a sessions judge or an additional sessions judge or a special court created under the said statute and the right of appeal so conferred would cater to every kind of appeal from every kind of order passed by the trial court, dealing with such cases. The view taken by the apex court is reproduced hereunder:- II.... We have found such an impression entertained by the learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, Lahore to be erroneous because the provisions of section 47 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 have made the Code of Criminal Procedure applicable "to trials and appeals before a Special Court under this Act" which shows that only the procedure-provided in the Code of Criminal Procedure is applicable to trials and appeals provided for under the Act of 1997 and section 47 of the Act of 1997 has not transposed any remedy of appeal or revision from the Code of Criminal Procedure to the Act of 1997. It ought to have been appreciated by the learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, Lahore that a remedy of an appeal, revision or review is a creation of a statute and applicability of the procedure prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure to proceedings under any other special statute does not ipso facto make the remedies provided in the Code of Criminal Procedure applicable to the other statute. The Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 is a special law containing all the relevant remedies .Catering for different ysituations and section 47 of the said Act has only made the procedure contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure applicable to the proceedings under the Act of 1997.
4. The provisions of section 48(1) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 clearly and unambiguously contemplate an appeal to a High Court against an order passed by a Special Court comprising of a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge and in the case in hand the learned Judge, Special Court, CNS, Lahore trying the respondent was a Sessions Judge. The right of appeal conferred by section 48(1) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 is all pervasive catering for every kind of appeal from every kind of order passed by such a Special Court and the provisions of section 48(1) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 do not make any distinction between an appeal against a conviction, an appeal against an acquittal or an appeal seeking enhancement of a sentence passed against a convict. The restrictive scope of section 48 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 visualized by the learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, Lahore confining it only to an appeal against conviction has been found by us to be offensive to the clear and unambiguous provisions of the said section and, thus, the same cannot be sustained or upheld by us. "
The petitioner had no other alternative but to file an appeal under section 48(1) of the Act (ibid) against the impugned judgment and that too within the period of limitation. By contemptuously wasting the time, the petitioner has let all of his chances and probabilities of succeeding herein, run down the drain. The impugned judgment, which otherwise might not have held the ground, would stay there, only due to ridiculous approach and queer understanding of the relevant law' by the petitioner, who has to pay the price for being so lazy, apathetic and lackadaisical throughout.
And the price is, the instant petition. Dismissed.