1. ' Heroin was recovered from the person of the petitioner while he was driving Rickshaw. He was tried by the learned Magistrate under Article 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 and as in the trial he confessed to the guilt, the learned Magistrate by his order dated 21-2-1983 sentenced him till the rising of the Court and a fine of Rs, 500 or in default S. I. For two months. As the sentence awarded by the learned Magistrate to the petitioner was not in proportion to the offence proved, the State preferred a Criminal Revision bearing No 61 of 1983 before this Court for the enhancement of the sentence. After bearing learned counsel for the parties, I allowed the revision application by order, dated 27-10-1984 and enhanced the sentence of the petitioner to 6 months' R. I. And a fine of Rs, 2,000 or in default further R.
1. For 6 months. The petitioner has now moved the present application under section 16 of the Probation of Offenders Ordinance XLV of 1960 for his release on probation.
2. ' The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is a first offender, he is a newly-married young man and is the only earning member of his family and as his sentence of imprisonment is less than two years, he deserves to be released on probation under the provisions of the said Ordinance.
3. ' I have not been influenced by what the learned counsel has submitted for the release of the petitioner on probation in a case of this nature, the more so as he is not a juvenile but is a grown- up young man and will have the senses of distinguishing between what is bad and what is good in life. I observe that the object of the Probation of Offenders Ordinance is that if in the circumstances of a given case, the Court is of opinion that if the convict is released on probation, he will make amends in himself on the side of reformation and will become a good citizen in the society, the Court must be disposed to hand him over to the Probation Department to reach him morals and make him a civilized person. But this principle is not attracted in each and every case particularly in a case in which the offence committed by the accused is an offence not excusable in any way. For example Zina, abduction case (most heart-rending of minors), gambling, theft, lifting of cars, smuggling, manufacture of liquor and dealing in narcotics are offences which are highly disgraceful and civilized people keep themselves on guard against the same. Such offences create chaos and confusion in the society. It is conceded that dealing in narcotics is a curse on the society and must be suppressed with an iron hand. In the present case, the petitioner is involved in an offence of heroin and the civilized world has raised a strong protest against the business in heroin, as it corrodes into the fabric of society to destroy it physically, mentally and culturally. This business has become an international crime and world States have got their heads together to crush it at all cost. I regret to observe that the concerned Law Enforcing Agencies responsible for suppressing it have not yet made an appreciable headway towards success in this behalf an scoundrel, have been at large to indulge in it. It can be said that if the contraband articles are reported to have been seized by the concerned forces on roads or somewhere else, it would just be a chance or co-incident. Otherwise one is at a loss to understand as to how business in narcotics is in progress dospite the fact that effective laws have been enacted to demoralise dealers of such disgraceful profession. This would show that people are under pressure of criminal-minded persons to speak against them. The assessment in this behalf is very much a reality. It is not a secret fact that a good number of criminal minded persons are enjoying privileged position in the society. Noble people feel suppressed to make a complaint against smugglers criminal-minded persons out of fear. It is generally complained that a poor noble person is misbehaved, if he makes a complaint against a criminal-minded person. There is a 1 lurking protest in the inner feelings of the society against the enjoyment of privileged position of criminal-minded persons in the Law Enforcing Agencies. This fact should arrest the serious attention of the concerned authorities so that the law abiding people feel safe, secure and in peace and have the courage to disclose in confidence every evil and voice of the criminal-minded persons. Unless positive steps are taken in this behalf. There can be no satisfactory solution for curbing the crimes in all their forms and manifestations.
4. Now I turn to deal with the present case. I have already observed that the offence committed by the accused in the present case is not an excusable offence. He is a grown-up young man driving Rickshaw. It is a matter of common knowledge that drivers of vehicles are carrying contraband articles, in their vehicles, as they can do this job conveniently in a clandestine manner. Thus as a driver of Rickshaw, it can be said with certainty that he has adopted the business of carrying contraband articles in the Rickshaw a profession and as the offence committed by him is extremely reprehensible, he cannot be supposed to reform himself morally if he is released on probation. He deserves to undergo imprisonment in Jail hoping that it would serve a. Lesson for him to put himself on right path for earning livelihood by lawful means.
5. ' This application is, therefore, rejected in limine.