QAISAR AHMAD HAMIDI, J.-Appellant Anthony George, a Nigerian national was tried by Special Judge (Customs and Taxation) Karachi, for the offence tinder section 156(1) (8) of the Customs Act, 1969, who convicted him on his own plea of guilt and vide judgment dated 10th May, 1992, sentenced him to suffer R.I. For six years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. One lac) or in default to suffer R.I. For one year. By this jail appeal the appellant has prayed for reduction of sentence:
2. On 20.4.1992, MA. Aziz Malik, Preventive Officer, Pakistan Customs was performing his duties at Freight Gate, Karachi Airport when the present appellant brought a medical bed (fowler) placed in a wooden crate for checking. The crate was covered under Airway Bill No. 214-53856611 dated 20.4.1992 and was destined for Nairobi by a PIA flight as un-accompanied baggage. The Preventive Officer suspected it and recovered from it powder of heroin weighing 5h Kgs, cleverly concealed in the iron bars. Such inventory was prepared in presence of mashirs Muhammad Yaseen and Rafat Jameel. A notice under section 171 of the Customs Act, 1969, was served upon the appellant who was taken into custody. A case under section 156(1)(8) of the Customs Act, 1969, was registered against the appellant and after usual investigation he was sent up before Special Judge (Custom and Taxation) Karachi, to stand trial for the said offence, where he was tried and convicted on his own plea of guilt.
3. I have heard the appellant in person and Mr. Ikram Ahmad Ansari, learned DAG for State. The latter has conceded to the reduction of sentence of fine alone.
4. The question of sentence in cases of this nature was considered by this Court in the case of Mrs. Munasingh Arachchige vs. The State, reported in 1990 P.Cr.(1).J. 62, wherein it was observed:- "Section 412 Cr.P.C., bars an appeal where an accused pleads guilty, except to the extent or legality of sentence. There is nothing illegal in the sentence awarded to appellant. The sentence in fact leans towards leniency. The object of punishment, as pointed out by Tyron Edward, is 'three-fold: for just retribution; for the protection of society; for the reformation of the offender'. The length and severity of the sentence has, therefore, to be determined on the circumstances of each case, keeping in view the object of punishment.
There is alarming increase of such cases which is mainly due to lenient sentence. It is important to stress that such situation arises, not from the 'law itself, but from their defective understanding and interpretation. There is a certain amount of tentativeness at all levels. The sentence should not be so lenient as to make crimes of this nature still lucrative. The foreigners who are involved in such heinous offences are again not entitled to any preferential treatment. The object of awarding sentence is to provide a deterrent effect on others."
5. This view was reiterated in the case of Bonifacio-A-Burayag vs.The State, reported in 1991 P.Cr.
(1).J. 22, in the following words:- "The sentence should, however, be proportionate to the nature and gravity of crime and it should not be so lenient so that such crimes may still remain lucrative. The appellant was found in possession of 8 Kgs of powder of heroin worth Crores of rupees in foreign market. He did not come out with truth at the initial stage of the case and was constrained to admit his guilt when he had no other option. The offence of smuggling of narcotics is spreading like a lotus and in fact it is high time now that the Legislature may consider the desirability of providing death penalty for such offences. It may be added that much water has passed under the bridge since the time the above judgments cited on behalf of the appellant were pronounced and the situation has now become alarming. The appellant was, therefore, rightly convicted and sentenced."
6. The view taken in the above case was examined by the Supreme Court in the case of Bonifacio- A-Burayag vs. Tlie State, reported in PLD 1991 S.C.988, and was confirmed in the following words: - "Where a legal sentence has been awarded and the discretion has been properly exercised, generally speaking, this Court seldom interferes with the sentence awarded to a convict. In the present case, in our view, the petitioner has been treated quite leniently as instead, of awarding him the being a carrier) a sentence of life imprisonment, he has been given only 7 years' rigorous imprisonment. It may be remembered that it is hardly conducive to the welfare of the society to give an impression that the Courts are more concerned with the welfare of convicts rather than that of the society. See Malik Muhammad Khan v. The Stale, PLD 1987 S.C. 500. We may add that while awarding the sentence in a case, regard has to be had if there existed extenuating circumstances and also to the nature of the offence committed, its effects on the victim and the society. The rule of leniency while awarding the sentence is, therefore, to be applied with care and caution. Reliance is placed on Gulzar Khan vs. The State PLD 1987 SC (AJ&K)
9. In the present case there are no extenuating circumstances. The effect of smuggling, dealing and unlawfully selling of narcotics on the fabric of society is disastrous. The petitioner was smuggling heroin powder in the quantity of 8 kgs. This quantity had the potential of destroying the health and family life of a large number of people. The appellate court has dealt with this aspect of the matter very elaborately."
7. The only important point that the appellant has been able to bring out is that he being a disabled person was entitled to some leniency. It must, however, be remembered that undue leniency far from having a deterrent effect, which is the end and aim of all punishments, tends to result in offences of this nature being repeated or made widely committed. The main object of punishment is not revenge but the protection of society. There is no room of any doubt that the offence was pre-arranged and a disabled person was selected purposely to justify the export of medical bed (fowler). Having regard to the circumstances attending to this case I would maintain the sentence of imprisonment awarded to appellant. He will, however, suffer S.I. In lieu of R.I. The sentence of fine is, however, reduced to Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousand) or in default S.I. For one month. The benefit of section 382-B Cr.P.C, is also extended to him.
8. With this modification the appeal is otherwise dismissed.