JUDGMENT: HAMID ALI MIRZA, J.--(1). These are two appeals against the same judgment of conviction in Case No. 12 of 1996 (State v. Dominguez Rodriguez Narciso), Appeal No. 15 of 1996 is sent through Superintendent, Central Prison, Karachi, whereas Appeal No. 18 of 1996 is filed through the counsel, whereby the appellant has been convicted under section 156(1)(8) of Customs Act and sentenced to R.I., for eight years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,00,000 and in default of payment of fine to suffer R.I. for two years. The trial Court also awarded the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. to the appellant.
2. The facts of the case need not be reproduced in detail, however, the appellant his been convicted and sentenced as said above on the ground that he was found in possession of 5 Kgs. of heroin on his plea of guilt.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant does not challenge the conviction but only requests reduction in sentence of fine imposed upon the appellant. He has placed reliance upon (i) Nick Kajtazi v. The State (PLD 1977 Karachi 1049), (ii) Obaie Funs Emanuel v. The State (1991 PCr.LJ 1705) and (iii)
Unchenna Ibeneme v. The State (1992 M LD 1823) in support of his contention.
(i) In case reported in Nick Kajtazi v. The State (PLD 1977 Karachi 1049) the learned Single Judge of this Court reduced the period of sentence of imprisonment from six months R.I. and fine of Rs.
30,000 to three months S.I. imprisonment and fine of Rs. 30,000 where the appellant was found to smuggle 44 Kgs. of Charas. The learned Single Judge in Para. 17 at Page 1057 has observed:-- "In view of the above discussion, therefore, I find no reason to disagree with the learned Special Judge that the factors taken into consideration by him were relevant for the purpose of determining the sentence. However, a plea of guilty should operate in favour of an accused and should be regarded as a mitigating factor when it comes to passing sentence. No doubt it will not be appropriate for a Court of law to enter into a bargain with the accused in this respect. But due weight should be given to the plea of guilty as it reflects the mental attitude of the accused in that he is prepared to face up his responsibility and expresses his remorse. If the Court is convinced that the accused shows genuine remorse or penitence for what he has done, leniency in the matter of sentence is positively desirable, Judicial opinion has consistently regarded a plea of guilty as affecting the extent of the sentence. The reading of the Judgment in appeal gives an impression that no adequate allowance was made by the learned Judge for the conduct of the prisoner in pleading guilty at the very first occasion available to him."
(ii) In case reported OBIE Funs Emanuel v. The State (1991 PCr. LJ 1705) the learned Judge in Chambers reduced the sentence of imprisonment from four years R.I. to one already undergone when the appellant accused had undergone 29 months imprisonment in jail and in the said case 9 Kgs. of heroin was found from the possession of the appellant accused.
(iii) In case reported Unchenna Ibeneme v. The State (1992 M LD 1823) the appellant accused was sentenced to six years R.I. with fine of Rs. 2,00,000 or in default to suffer two years R.I. but the learned Judge in Chambers considering the said sentence to be very harsh in the circumstances reduced to one year with fine of Rs. 50,000. Or in default to suffer three months S.I. when 9.8 Kgs. of brown heroin powder and 0.5 Kg. of white heroin powder were recovered. All the cases which have been cited pertain to the period when the period of sentence of imprisonment under the law was not more than ten years and fine but now the sentence of imprisonment under the law has enhanced upto 14 years and fine so also whipping. However, looking to the facts of instant case as the appellant has pleaded guilty and such plea of guilt of accused has been held by this Court to operate in favour of the accused and same is regarded as a mitigating factor while passing sentence. In the circumstances stated, this Court is convinced that the appellant accused has shown his genuine remorse or penitence for what he has done, therefore, leniency is required to be taken in the matter of sentence in view of the judicial dictum laid down by the Superior Courts from time and again.
4. In the circumstances these appeals have no merit which are hereby dismissed, however, sentence of fine is reduced from 5,00,000 to Rs. 2,50,000 and in default in the payment of fine to suffer R.I. for one year.