2017 M L D 1508
[Balochistan]
Before Muhammad Ejaz Swati and Abdullah Baloch, JJ
NAJEEBULLAH ---Appellant
Versus
The STATE---Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.50 of 2017, decided on 17th April, 2017.
Drugs Act (XXXI of 1976) ---
----Ss. 23(1)(c) & 27 ---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 34---Criminal Procedure Code (V of
1898), S. 412---Selling drugs without license, common intention---Appreciation of evidence ---
Sentence, modification of ---Accused was found selling the drugs recovered f rom his store/shop
without drug selling license ---Show -Cause Notice was issued to the accused but the same was
not replied--- Information report along with complete documents were sent to Provincial Control
Board and after grant of sanction for prosecution, the complaint was filed ---Record showed that
at the time of framing the charge, accused pleaded guilty and placed him at the mercy of Trial
Court ---Trial Court had awarded conviction for two months to the accused ---Validity ---By virtue
of provision of S. 412, Cr.P.C. accused who pleaded guilty to the charge had no right of appeal
against his conviction, however, legality of the sentence passed against him, being harsh, by the
Trial Court, could be challenged through appeal ---Fact remained that accused was juvenile and a
student and suffered the anguish of criminal trial and remained in jail for few days ---Accused
had voluntarily confessed his guilt and placed him at the mercy of the court, besides, recovered
drugs/medicines were not foreign made, forged or substandard---Keeping in view the overall
impact of the case and particularly the age of the accused being juvenile and student, sentence of
the accused for two months was reduced to that of already undergone by the High Court ---
Appeal was dismissed with m odification of sentence.
Abdul Kabir for Appellant.
Yahya Baloch, Deputy Prosecutor General for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 13th April, 2017.
JUDGMENT
ABDULLAH BALOCH, J. ---This Criminal Appeal No.50 of 2017 has been preferred
by the appellant Najeeb ullah Son of Jalal -ud-Din, assailing the judgement dated 13th March
2017 (hereinafter referred as, "the impugned judgment"), passed by the Chairman Drugs Court
Balochistan Quetta (hereafter referred as, "the trial Court"), whereby the appellant was convict ed
under Section 23(1) (c) of the Drugs Act, 1976 and sentenced to suffer two months' R.I. with fine
of Rs.50,000/ - or in default thereof to further suffer one month S.I.
2. Facts of the case are that the complainant Sarwar Khan Kakar, Drug Inspector Qetta
Zone -J, filed a complaint No.DI -J-09/2015 against the appellant before the learned trial Court
under Sections 23(1)(c) read with section 27 of the Drugs Act, 1976 and 34, P.P.C., stating
therein that on 5th August 2015 at 12.40 p.m. he along with Steno ty pist Azizullah during routine
inspection, visited and seized Messrs Al -Saif Medical Store, Abdul Qudoos Road Pashtoonabad
Quetta, which was being run without Drug Sale License by the appellant Najeebullah Son of Haji
Jamal -ud-Din. Hence, the complainant took the samples of Femme Tablets 40mg, Batch
No.3566, Zyrtec Tab 10mg, Batch No.4369 and Glucophage Table 500 mg, Batch No.G 4910,
manufactures by Batala [pharmaceuticals 23/B, Small Industrial Estate No.2, Gujranwala,
Pakistan, AGP (Pvt.) Ltd. B -23 Site Ka rachi and Merck (Pvt.) Ltd. 7- Jail Road, Quetta. It is
further averred in the complaint that on 6th August 2015 Show -Cause Notice was issued to the
appellant, but the same was not replied, hence the information report alongwith complete
documents were sent to Provincial Control Board Quetta and after grant of prosecution sanction
the complaint has been filed before the trial Court.
3. On receipt of complaint, the case was registered and was fixed for framing of charge on
9th March 2017, hence on the said da te charge was framed and read over to the appellant, who
pleaded his guilt, thus after codel formalities, the trial Court vide impugned judgment dated 13th
March 2017 convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above, whereafter instant
appeal has b een filed.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant while advancing his arguments contended that the
appellant is a tender -age of 17- years and also is a student, thus being juvenile and student, his
further detention in jail along with other hardened criminals is harmful for his future; that since
the recovered drugs/medicines are not forged/sub -standard or foreign origin, thus lenient view
was required to be taken, but the learned trial Court has treated harshly to the appellant, hence
the impugned judgment wi th regard to quantum of sentence requires interfere of this Court.
6. Learned Deputy Prosecutor General while supporting the conviction argued that the trial
Court has already taken a lenient view; that the appellant is no more entitled for any further
leniency.
7. Heard the learned counsel and perused the available record. As per the prosecution story
the complainant during routine inspection, visited and seized Messrs Al -Saif Medical Store,
Abdul Qudoos Road Pashtoonabad Quetta, which was being run without Drug Sale License by
the appellant Najeebullah Son of Haji Jalal -ud-Din. The appellant at the time of framing charge
pleaded his guilt and placed him at the mercy of trial Court and the trial Court vide impugned
judgment has awarded conviction for two months and on the said date the appellant was taken
into custody and remained in jail till his release on bail by this Court i.e. 17th March 2017. The
trial Court has already taken a lenient view into the matter by awarding lesser punishment to the
appellant . By virtue of provision of Section 412, Cr.P.C. accused who pleaded guilty to the
charge had no right of appeal against his conviction, but could maintain an appeal only to the
extent of the legality of the sentence passed against him being harsh by the t rial Court. However,
the fact remains before us is that the appellant is a juvenile and also a student coupled with the
fact that being juvenile he suffered the anguish of criminal trial before the trial Court and also
remained jail for few days. The appel lant voluntarily confessed his guilt and placed him at the
mercy of the Court. In that eventuality, he would become a friend of the Court and the Court
always took lenient view in respect of his sentence. Besides, the recovered drugs/medicines are
not fore ign made, forged or substandard, thus keeping in view the overall impact of the case and
particularly the age of the appellant being juvenile and student, the sentence of the appellant for
two months is reduced to that of already undergone, while the remai ning sentences of fine
amount or the sentence in default thereof shall remain intact.
With the above modification in the quantum of sentence, the appeal stands dismissed.
JK/58/Bal Order accordingly.This judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error,
let us know.