ZAHEER-UD-DIN KAKAR, J.---This appeal has been directed against the judgment dated 24.3.2017 "the impugned judgment" passed by the Drug Court of Balochistan, Quetta "the trial Court", whereby the appellant Muhammad Shafiq was convicted under Section 23(1)(c) of the Drugs Act, 1976 and sentenced to suffer five (5) months Rigorous Imprisonment (RI) with fine of Rs.50,000/- or in default of payment of fine to further undergo Simple Imprisonment (SI) for two months.
2. Precisely stated, the facts of the case are that on 05.8.2014 at about 11:50 a.m., the complainant namely Sarwar Khan Kakar, Drug Inspector Quetta Zone-J, inspected the Akbari Medical Store, Metha Chowk, Pashtoonabad, Quetta and found the appellant in illegal dealing of drug (medicine) business without having a Drug Sale License. Resultantly, he took the samples of the seized stock on Form 5 as case property and sealed the said Medical Store.
3. On 6.8.2015, the complainant issued a show-cause notice to the appellant in respect of the sale of drugs without a Drug Sale License, but without any reply, as such, sanction for prosecution against the appellant was granted by the Provincial Quality Control Board, Balochistan, Quetta vide letter dated 31.10.2015.
4. The trial Court, after taking cognizance, framed a charge and read over to the appellant, to which he pleaded guilty. Notice under Section 243, Cr.P.C. was issued. The appellant, once again admitted his guilt and placed himself at the mercy of the Court and requested to take lenient view.
Thus, the trial Court, convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above, hence this appeal.
5. At the very outset, the learned counsel for the appellant does not press the appeal on merits and requested for moderate reduction in the quantum of sentence on the ground that the appellant is first offender, not previously convicted and the only bread winner of his family. He further submitted that the appellant will not ask for de-sealing of the medical store without obtaining valid drug sales license.
6. On the other hand, the learned State Counsel opposed the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant and stated that the appellant has admitted his guilt, as such, he (appellant) cannot call the judgment impugned in question.
7. Heard and perused the record. In this case, admittedly, the appellant had made clear confession thereby admitting that he stocked and sold medical drugs at the Messrs Akbari Medical Store, situated at Mitha Chowk Pashtoonabad without having a drug sale license and declined to produce any evidence. It is a common practice that once a person who is involved in a criminal case wants to plead guilty to the charge leveled against him and placed himself at the mercy of the Court and in that eventuality he become a friend of the Court and the Court always takes lenient view in respect of his sentence. Since the appellant, in the instant case, have straight away placed himself at the mercy of the trial Court and pleaded guilty, therefore, the trial Court has rightly taken a lenient view in respect of his sentence which is neither illegal nor contrary to the punishment provided in section 23(1)(c) of the Drugs Act, 1976. Furthermore, having confessed the guilt, appellant is barred under section 412, Cr.P.C. to challenge his conviction and sentence by filing appeal. He could only challenge the extent or legality of the sentence which he has failed to challenge. There is no reason why after the complaint and appearance in the trial Court, the appellant how remained unaware that if he made statement in the Court in the proceedings it could result in his conviction and sentence on his own plea of guilty. In a similar case reported as Muhammad Saeed v. The Stare (1985 SCM R 1405), where the accused had confessed his guilt and declined to produce any evidence in defence, Hon'ble Apex Court refused to grant leave to appeal.
Relevant para of the said judgment is reproduced herein below:-- "Not only the petitioner pleaded guilty he also admitted that the drug recovered from him was substandard and declined to produce any evidence. There is no reason why after the complaint and his appearance in the Drug Court he should remain unaware that he was making a statement in Court in proceedings which may result in his conviction and sentence. This being a case of conviction and sentence on his-own plea of guilty, no interference is called for and hence leave to appeal is refused."
8. This being case of conviction and sentence on his-own plead guilty, no interference is called for.
Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed.