MUHAMMAD ASLAM ESSANI, J. - Through this appeal the appellant Gregorio Sanchez has challenged the impugned judgment dated 25.2.1998, passed by the learned Special Judge (Customs and Taxation), Karachi, in Special Case No. 150/1996 under Section 156 (1)(8) of the Customs Act, 1969, whereby the appelhnt was convicted and sentenced to suffer R.I. For four years and to pay fine of Rs. 75,000/-. in default of payment of fine appellant was ordered to undergo R.I. For six months more. The appellant was also given benefit under Section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 24.9.1996, while the informant Mr. Mateenullah, Preventive Officer, Customs was on duty at the International Departure Hall, Jinnah Terminal Complex, Quaid-e-Azam International Airport, Karachi, he intercepted a passenger identified as Geogorio Sanchez holding Dominican Passport No. 1679696, who was leaving for Bombay by PIA Flight No. PK-274. The passenger named above was asked to declare whether he was carrying any contraband goods on his person or in his baggage, to which he replied in negative, not satisfied with the declaration of the passenger his baggage comprising of two suit cases was subjected to examination in presence of two mashirs namely, Muhammad Asghar and Muhammad Sagheer.
On examination of both the suit cases they were found tc be packed with the personal wearing apparel. Keeping in view the trend of concealment in the suit cases the same were emptied but even then were found heavier than the normal weight of suit case. As such the suit cases were ripped opened and this led to the recovery of heroin powder concealed in the top and bottom of the suit cases. The heroin powder recovered was weighed and found to be 4.20 Kgs. (gross). The heroin powder so recovered along with travelling documents and the suit cases were seized under mushirnama. Three representative samples of the seized heroin powder were drawn, sealed and signed by the aforesaid mashir. The passenger accused Gregorio Sanchez was arrested and served with a notice under Section 171 of the Customs Act, 1969.
3. After usual investigation appellant was sent up to stand trial.
4. The Trial Court framed the charge under Section 156 (1)(8) of Customs Act, 1969, which was read over and explained to the appellant in English language, which he understands. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the said charge and claimed to be tried.
5. in support of its case the prosecution examined PW Hafiz Muhammad Ali Khoso, Investigating Officer. He was not cross-examined by the defence counsel. After the evidence of the above said prosecution witness counsel for the appellant stated before the Trial Court that appellant wants to plead guilty. On such statement prosecution closed their side. Statement of appellant was recorded under Section 342, Cr.P.C, wherein, he admitted his guilt and also filed such written inculpatory confessional statement.
6. Rana M. Shamim, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the appellant accepts the charge; that he is a foreign national; that he is victim of circumstances and belongs to a respectable family, therefore, his substantial sentence including fine may be reduced to the period already undergone.
7. Syed Tariq Ali, learned Standing Counsel for the Federal Government, has contended that narcotic paddlers deserve no concession or grace; that they are manace for the world and that there is no mitigating circumstance in the case in hand for lenient view. He urged that appeal is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
8. have heard Rana M. Shamim, learned counsel for the appellant and Syed Tariq Ali, learned Standing Counsel for the Federal Government and have also perused the material placed on record.
9. The conviction is based on the appellant's own plea of guilt, therefore, he is not entitled to challenge his conviction by virtue of bar contained under Section 412, Cr.P.C. The offence with which appellant is charged is punishable with 14 years and fine.
10. in the case of Jonathan New House v. The State (1993 P.Cr.L.J. 823) this Court, in case punishable under Section 156 {1)(8) of the Customs Act, 1969, held that accused after having pleaded guilty was convicted on such plea to be treated as a criminal. The accused was sentenced to suffer R.I.
For four years with a fine of Rs. 200,000/-. it was further observed that the offence was punishable with imprisonment for 14 years, therefore, sentence awarded to accused was appropriate and did not call for any interference towards reduction, in that case charas was secured from the possession of one Jonathan New House, an American National.
11. The drug trafficking is hazardous to the public at large. The persons and their co-associates, who indulge in such nefarious activities deserve no sympathy and leniency and they are to be dealt with iron hand.
12. In the above-referred case my learned brother (late) Qaiser Ahmed Hamidi, J., further observed as under:- "9. While considering this question in the case of Anthony George v. The State, reported in 1992 M LD 2202, this Court again observed as follows:- "It must, however, be remembered that undue leniency far from having a deterrent effect, which is the end and a.m. 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".
10. Punishment is, before all things deterrent, and the chief end of the law of crime is to make the evil doer an example and a warning to all that are like minded with him. In the words of Salmond:- "If a man is destitute of the affections and social instincts of humanity, the judgment of commonsense upon him is not that he should be treated more leniently than the normal evit doer - nor the society should cherish him in the hope of making him a good citizen - but that by the rigour of penal discipline his fate should be made to terror and a warning to himself and others".
(Jurisprudence, page 119).
No leniency on the ground of sympathy should be extended to such a person. Sympathy for such a person means lack of sympathy for drug addicts and their weeping relatives and dependents. If the reasons advanced on behalf of appellant (except few which have already been considered by learned Special Judge) are to be accepted, it would mean that an accused with old parents should not be sent to prison at all. On conviction an accused has to be treated as a criminal. The offence with which the appellant was charged and convicted is punishable with imprisonment for 14 years.
The appellant was sentenced to suffer R.I. For four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rs. two lac). The sentence was, therefore, appropriate and does not call for any interference." in yet another case Mrs. Munasingh Arachchige v. The State (1990 P.Cr.L.J. 62), it was observed in a case of smuggling of heroin punishable under Section 156 (1)(8) of the Customs Act, 1969, as under:- "5. 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."
13. The upshot of the above discussion is that merely because the appellant had pleaded guilty and is foreign national did not legally entitle him to any leniency in the matter of sentence in the offence of smuggling of heroin. Trial Court had already taken lenient view of the matter.
Consequently, appeal merits no consideration and is dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.