IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT,

LARKANA

Crl. Jail Appeal No. D- 38 of 2022.

Present:

Mr. Justice Muhammad Saleem Jessar.

Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana.

Abdullah Jamali. ……………...………...Appellant.

Versus

The State. …..…....……………..Respondent.

Mr. Shakeel Ahmed G. Ansari, Advocate for appellant.

Mr. Ali Anwar Kandhro, Additional Prosecutor General.

Date of hearing: 20.03.2024.

Date of Judgment: 20.03.2024.

Judgment

Muhammad Saleem Jessar, J-. Through this appeal, appellant Abdullah son of Sohab Ali Jamali has assailed the judgment dated 26.10.2022 penned down by learned Sessions Judge/ Special Judge for CNS, Jacobabad, in Special case No. 30 of 2022, emanating from F.I.R No. 03 of 2022 of P.S Saddar, Jacobabad, whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced for offences under Section 9 (c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, to undergo R.I for six years and six months and to pay fine of Rs.30,000/- and in default to pay fine to suffer S.I for six months more. The appellant was however extended benefit of Section 382-B Cr.P.C.

2. At the very outset learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has mostly completed quantum of sentence awarded to him. He further submitted that, he is ready not to press instant appeal on merit, if sentence of appellant is reduced to that of already undergone, as he has sufficiently been punished for remaining in jail. Therefore, appellant may be given a chance in his life to rehabilitate himself. Per learned counsel for appellant, the appellant is previous non-convict and he is sole breadwinner of his entire family, who are on starvation due to confinement of appellant. Learned counsel further contended that the appellant is a first offender and his conduct as reported in the jail-roll has remained satisfactory.

3. Conversely, the learned Addl. P.G. submits that the appellant has sufficiently been punished as he has remained in jail for sufficient period; therefore, he recorded no objection, if the sentence of the appellant is reduced to that of already undergone.

4. According to jail-roll of the appellant dated 09.02.2024, the appellant has served out substantive sentence for 02-year, 01-months and 17-days. Besides, he has earned remissions for 02-years, 06-months and 28-days (upto 09.02.2024); totaling to 04-years, 08-months and 15-days, which appears to be an adequate portion of sentence. Moreover, conduct of the appellant in jail is also “satisfactory” as reported by the jail authorities. The appellant also appears to be first offender, as there is no such material on record that the appellant is already convicted in any other case.

5. It is a well-established principle of law that in special circumstances, the Court at its discretion can divert from the norms and standards prescribed in terms of sentencing guidelines after assigning cogent reasons. In this respect, reliance is placed on the case of State through Deputy Director (Law), Regional Directorate, Anti-Narcotics Force v. Mujahid Naseem Lodhi (PLD 2017 SC 671) wherein it has been held that:-

“The exercise of jurisdiction and discretion in the matter of the respondent's sentence by the trial court and the High Court have not been found by us to be open to any legitimate exception, particularly when the reasons recorded for passing a reduced sentence against the respondent and for making a departure from the above mentioned sentencing guidelines have been found by us to be proper in the peculiar circumstances of this case.”

6. The Hon’ble Apex Court had also been pleased to reduce sentence in cases of similar nature reported as Sherzada v. The State (1993 SCMR 149) and Gul Badshah v. The State (2011 SCMR 984).

7. In view of above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the appellant has succeeded to make out a case for reduction of his sentence. Therefore, in order to give a chance to the appellant in his life to rehabilitate himself so also following the dictum laid down case of State through Deputy Director (Law), Regional Directorate, Anti-Narcotics Force v. Mujahid Naseem Lodhi; Sherzada v. The State and Gul Badshah v. The State (supra) and case of Niaz-ud-Din v. The State (2007 SCMR 206), this appeal is partly allowed. Consequently, while maintaining the conviction of the appellant, the sentence inflicted on him is reduced to that of already undergone including sentence of fine amount and the term of imprisonment in default thereof. The appellant is reported to be in jail, he shall be released forthwith, if his custody is not required in any other case.

Judge

Ansari