' The present appeal which is one under section 412, Cr. P. C. Has been filed by Pierre Yves Jean, against the conviction recorded against him under section 156(8) of the Customs Act and a sentence of imprisonment up to the rising of the Court and a fine of Rs, 14,000 or in default R. I. For years. He was tried and convicted by the Special Judge (Customs and Taxation), Karachi. The appellant had pleaded guilty so that Mr. Rustam Kaikobad has only pressed the appeal on the point of sentence. I have heard Mr. Ghulam Ali Memon, Advocate-General for the State.
2. The brief facts are that on 7-10-1975 appellant was leaving Karachi Airport for Montreal. He had 2 suit-cases. From the suit-cases of the appellant 20 lbs. Of charas were recovered. He was apprehended by the Preventive Staff of Karachi Customs and arrested. He was also found in possession of the travelling documents including Passport. On conclusion of investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted by the Assistant Director of Customs (Intelligence), Karachi, on 21-10- 1975. Substance of accusation was framed on 28-10-1975 to which the appellants pleaded guilty.
Appellant was convicted and sentenced as stated above.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued before me that the appellant was unable to pay a fine of Rs, 14,C00 but had with difficulty succeeded to arrange an amount of Rs, 10,000 which he would be prepared to pay as fine in order to avoid undergoing sentence imposed on him in default of payment of fine. It has further been urged by Mr. Kaikobad that the appellant had remained an undertrial prisoner for a week. The learned counsel further contends that the appellant is a foreign national and his detention causes extreme hardship even on his family. The learned Advocate-General has however, urged that the sentence imposed on the appellant is not illegal inasmuch as fine in such cases even extends to 10 times the value of the property which is the subject-matter of the case. The learned Advocate-General however, agreed, that since charas is not sold in the market, with or without a licence, there was hardly any reason to 'evaluate the same at Rs, 200 per lb. In any case, while the Statute lays the maximum limit in regard to imposition of fine, it does not lay down any minimum limit.
4. Taking into consideration all these circumstances, I am of the view that the ends of justice would be sufficiently met if the sentence of the appellant is reduced to rising of the Court and a fine of Rs, 10,000. In case of default the appellant shall suffer R. I. For one year.