' SYED DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH, J.---Leave to appeal is sought against order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 7-5-2002, passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No,775/M of 2002 in Criminal Appeal No,648 of 1992.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case, as alleged in the complaint, are that on 6-1-1991 Mr. Muhammad Shakoor, Drug Inspector, Sargodha, along with Ch. Saeed Anwar, Divisional Drugs Inspector, inspected the shop Messrs Samee Medicos, and seized some drugs, which were misbranded, unregistered and without warranty. Petitioners were charged under sections 23(1)(a)
(vii), 23(1)(a)(iii), 23(1)(i) and 23(1)(c) of the Drugs Act, 1976. Both of them confessed their guilt before the Drug Court for Punjab, Lahore on 17-6-1992 and their statements were recorded. The case was fixed for further proceedings for 24-6-1992. However, thereafter petitioners-accused did not appear before the Court, though warrants of their arrest had also been issued repeatedly. The trial Court vide judgment dated 22-7-1992 convicted the petitioners under sections 23/27 of the Drugs Act, 1976 and sentenced them to undergo R.I. For two years, each, with fine of Rs,5,000 each, or in default of payment of fine to suffer six months' R.I. Each.
3. Feeling aggrieved, petitioners filed Criminal Appeal No,648 of 1992. At the time of hearing of the appeal, on 12-8-1992, Sh. Muhammad Nawaz, Advocate Supreme Court and the petitioners were present, and after hearing the learned counsel, operation of the judgment of the trial Court was suspended and the petitioners were admitted to bail on their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,30,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner, Sargodha. On 6-12-2000 none appeared on behalf of the petitioners before the High Court. The appeal was heard by a Division Bench of the High Court with the assistance of learned A.A.-G., but ultimately it was dismissed, maintaining the conviction and sentence awarded by the learned trial Court. Mr. Akhtar Masood Khan, Advocate, tiled C. Miscellaneous Application No,444-M of 2001 for rehearing of the appeal, which was considered to be incompetent and dismissed vide order dated 22-2-2001, because petitioners did not surrender themselves to custody. Thereafter, Mr. S.M. Rashid, Advocate, moved Criminal Miscellaneous No,775 of 2002, praying that, as the petitioners had surrendered, their appeal be re-heard on merits. Learned Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the same, too, vide order dated 7-5-2002, on the ground that the application was incompetent as in fact it amounted to reviewing the earlier judgment, which was not permissible. Hence this petition.
4. Learned counsel for petitioners, inter alia, contended that in the instant case the trial has not been conducted in accordance with the provisions of section 242, Cr.P.C., as such, the conviction and sentence passed against the petitioners are liable to be set aside in the light of the judgment passed by this Court in Muhammad Saeed v. The State (1985 P.Cr.L.J. 1440); that the judgment dated 22-7-1992 passed by the Drug Court, Punjab, Lahore, is against law and facts of the case; and that according to the practice of the trial Court for the last more than 7/8 years in cases, like the one in hand, only fine from Rs,1,000 to Rs,3,000 was imposed and never any sentence of imprisonment was passed, therefore, the conviction and sentence awarded to petitioners is too harsh.
5. We have considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel and minutely gone through the record. Admittedly, the accused confessed their guilt before the trial Court and their statements in this regard were also A recorded. The trial Court proceeded to convict the absconders/petitioners and sentenced them in accordance with law. It would be advantageous to refer here section 27 of the Drugs Act, 1976, which reads as under:-- "27. Penalties.--(1) Whoever himself or by any other person on his behalf--
(a) exports, imports, manufactures for sale or sells any spurious drug or any drug which is not registered;
(b) manufactures for sale any drug without a licence; or
(c) imports without licence any drug for the import of which a licence is required; ' shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years or more than ten years and with fine which may extend to five lackh rupees."
Even at the time of hearing of the main appeal, neither petitioners nor their counsel appeared, but the learned High Court, after hearing the Law Officer, dismissed the appeal maintaining the conviction and sentence awarded to the petitioners by the trial Court. The trial Court has already shown leniency in the sentence. The case-law cited by learned counsel is distinguishable on facts and law. The judgment of the High Court to our mind is well-reasoned and does not suffer from any legal or factual infirmity. Moreover, no substantial question of law of public importance is involved in this petition.
6. Resultantly, the petition is dismissed on merits alongwith the criminal miscellaneous application, and leave to appeal declined.