' GHULAM NABI SOOMRO, J.--- By this common judgment, we propose to dispose of both the Criminal Appeals Nos.140 of 2000 (Rudolf Orsolino v. The State) and Criminal Appeal No,201 of 1999 (Abdul Ghani v. The State), as identical question of fact and law is involved and also the prayer is same in both these appeals.
2. The appellant Rodolf (in Criminal Appeal No,140 of 2000) has been convicted under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and sentenced to life imprisonment plus fine of Rs,10,00,000 and in default thereof to undergo R.I. For one year more for possessing three Kgs. Of heroin powder.
3. The appellant Abdul Ghani (in Criminal Appeal No,201 of 1999) has also been convicted under section 9(c) of the Act and sentenced to life imprisonment plus fine of Rs,1,00,000 in default thereof to suffer R.I. For one year more, for possessing four Kgs. Of opium.
4. Both the appellants were given benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
5. The prayer in both the appeals is for reduction of sentences only, for which following submissions have been made.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the sentences passed against the appellants were too harsh. The quantity of narcotics was much below 10 Kgs. The case of the appellant did not fall under the proviso attached to subsection (c) of section 9 of the Act. It was further argued that the sentences should not exceed the gravity of the offence and it should be commensurate with the gravity of the offence. It was further urged that the law prescribes sentence up to 14 years' R.I.
Whereas sentences of death or life imprisonment can be awarded in cases involving more than 10 Kgs. Of narcotics. Reliance was placed upon Amanullah alias Aman v. The State 2000 PCr.LJ 1536, John Chibuzo v. The State 2000 M LD 235.
7. On the other hand Mr. Shoaib M. Ashraf learned Special Prosecutor appearing for the State, submitted that the offence was punishable with imprisonment extending up to R.I. For 14 years or life or death. He submitted that the image of the nation and the country is being tarnished in the eyes of comity of other nations, besides young generation is getting an addicted to narcotics, the Court should act dynamically. He while supporting the impugned judgment placed reliance upon:- -
(1) Ali Muhammad Panhwar v. The State 2001 PCr.LJ 338, (2) Amanullah alias Aman v. The State 2000 PCr.LJ 1536, (3) Maqsood Ahmed v. The State 2000 M LD 725, (4) Ali Muhammad and others v.
The State 2000 PCr.LJ 755, (5) Nasrullah v. The State 1998 PCr.LJ 2086, (6) Munawar Hussain alias Bobi and 2 others v. The State 1993 SCM R 785.
8. In the case of Ali Muhammad Panhwar v. The State 2001 PCr.LJ 338, it has been held by D.B. Of this Court that the sentence awarded to the accused should be proportionate to the quantity of narcotics recovered from the accused. Accordingly, sentence awarded to the accused was reduced. In the case of Amanullah alias Aman v. The State 2000 PCr.LJ 1536 the accused found travelling in a vehicle from which a huge quantity of Charas weighing 252 Kgs. Was recovered, on being found guilty were sentenced to life imprisonment with fine but on appeal were sentenced to 10 years' R.I. Only, as the facts revealed that their sentences were acquired as carriers only. In the case of Maqsood Ahmed v. The State 2000 M LD 725 appeal of the convict (involving narcotics more than 10 Kgs.) against the sentence of life imprisonment, under section 9(c) of the Act, was dismissed. In the case of Ali Muhammad and others v. The State 2000 PCr.LJ 755 the appeals of convicts against their sentences of life imprisonment and fine of Rs,1 million, under section 9(c) read with section 7 of the Ordinance VI of 1995 for possessing 10 Kgs. Of Charas were dismissed. In the case of Nasrullah v. The State 1998 PCr.LJ 2086 the appeal of the convict against his sentence of life imprisonment, in case of 160 Kgs. Of opium and Iranian Currency was dismissed. In the case of Munawar Hussain alias Bobi and 2 others v. The State 1993 SCM R 785. The appeals of the appellants against their conviction and sentences of 10 years' R.I. Under section 156(1)(8) read with section 178 of the Customs Aci, 1969 and sentence of five years' R.I. Under Article 3 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, passed by the trial Court and maintained by the learned Federal Shariat Court were dismissed by the Honourable Supreme Court. In the case of John Chibuzo v. The State 2000 M LD 235 the sentence of convict to R.I. For 14 years and fine under section 156(1)(8) of the Customs Act involving in 123 Kgs. Of heroin powder was reduced to 12 years in the circumstances of the case.
9. We have given our anxious consideration to the contentions raised on behalf of the parties in the light of the case-law and have also gone through the record.
10. Section 9(c) of the Act prescribes sentence of R.I. Up to 14 years or life or death in case the quantity of narcotics exceeds one Kg. The proviso attached to subsection (c), however, prescribes minimum penalty of life imprisonment in case the quantity exceeds 10 Kgs. Keeping in view the aforesaid penal provisions of section 9(c) of the Act, it would be gathered that the sentence of life imprisonment or death in cases involving narcotics with quantity of less than 10 Kgs. Would be too harsh and may not appear to be in consonance with the above provisions and appear highly improportionate. Such a case, therefore, involving a quantity less than 10 Kgs. Would normally not call for a sentence exceeding 14 years' imprisonment. The quantity of narcotics involved in the instant two cases is much less than 10 Kgs. i.e, 3 Kgs. Of heroin powder and 4 Kgs. Of opium respectively. Though rigid mathematical calculation, keeping the terms of imprisonment opposite the quantity of narcotics may not be warranted yet reasonable proportion of sentence would be well within the spirit of the provisions of the Act.
11. In view of the above, we are inclined to reduce the sentences passed against the appellants, which shall be as follows:- Criminal Appeal No,140 of 2000 Sentence reduced to 10 years' R.I. And fine of Rs,5,00,000 and in default whereof to suffer six months more.
Criminal Appeal No,201 of 1999 Sentence reduced to R.I. For 10 years plus fine of Rs,1,00,000 and in default whereof to suffer six months more.
12. The benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Given to the appellants by the trial Court shall remain intact.
13. Both the appeals stand dismissed with the above modification.
Sentence reduced.