1. ' Appellant above-named was convicted under section 156(1) (8) of Customs Act, read with section 178 of Customs Act 1969, on his own plea of guilt, in case No, 90/83, vide judgment, dated 11th June, 1983 and sentenced to suffer R. I. For one year and to pay fine of Rs, 75,000 or in default so suffer further R. I. For one year, has preferred the above appeal under section 185-F, Customs Act, 1969, read with section 512, Cr. P. C., on the following facts and grounds :- ' That on 5th May, 1983 at about 6-45 p.m. The appellant was detained in the International Departure Lounge at the Karachi Airport following search and recovery of 2 Kgs. Of heroin powder from his baggage.
2. ' That a case under section 156(1)(8) under the Customs Act was registered against the appellant and after due investigation, he was challaned in the Court of Special Judge (Customs) Karachi.
3. ' That at the trial, on his plea of guilt, the appellant was convicted and sentenced as stated herein above.
4. ' Learned counsel for appellant submitted as under :- ' That the appellant is a young man, foreigner and an American national.
5. ' That the appellant is not a previous convict.
6. ' That the appellant is a Graduate and comes from a respectable family.
7. ' That the appellant pleaded guilty at the very outset of the trial.
8. ' That the appellant is not a smuggler. As already submitted in Court he became a victim of temptation offered to him by another foreign national.
9. ' That the appellant during investigation, has already been deprived of an expensive camera and 13000 Deutsche Marks, equal to Rs, 1,04,000 (approx.)
10. ' In support of above grounds, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted, that he relies on cases reported in 1978 P Cr. L J 209 and 633, he further submitted that appellant has remained in custody right from 13th November, 1982 the day of his arrest and is not the beneficiary of the goods in question and became victim of friendship and is young man and not a previous convict. In view of this sentences awarded to him, on his own plea of guilt are excessive. He further submitted, that appellant has no source of income in Pakistan nor any relative and as such he is not in position to pay heavy fine imposed on him and his present detention in Jail, has caused extreme hardship to his family members and as such sentence already undergone by him be considered as sufficient punishment, as appellant is not the beneficiary of goods in question.
11. ' Learned Advocate appearing for State on the other hand submitted, that appellant has been awarded very lenient punishment and as such this Court has issued suo mow notice for enhancement of sentence to the appellant.
12. ' I have carefully considered the above submissions made by the learned Advocates before me and have gone through the impugned judgment. Since above appeal and suo moiu revision arise out of same judgment, I propose to dispose of both these matters by this common judgment.
13. Smuggling by itself deserves deterrent punishment, more so in case of heroin smuggling, which is very injurious to young persons all over the world. There is nothing on record to prima facie support the contention of the appellant, that he was not beneficiary of the goods in question. The only mitigating circumstances in present case is, that appellant honestly admitted his guilt right from beginning and has remained in custody from the date of his arrest i,e, 13th November, 1982. The learned trial Court took into consideration these mitigating circumstances and awarded very lenient sentences to the appellant and as such I see no reason to interfere with the sentences awarded to appellant, except that in case appellant fails to pay fine of Rs, 75,000 imposed on him, in such case I would reduce the sentence in lieu of non-payment of fine from one year to six months, as appellant has no income in Pakistan to pay said fine and C normally sentences in lieu of fine ranges from 3 to 6 months. Consequently Revision Petition No, 3/83 is dismissed and notices given to appellant is withdrawn.
14. ' Above appeal stands dismissed in terms of above judgment.