IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI
Criminal Appeal No.242 of 2022
|
DATE |
ORDER
WITH SIGNATURE(s) OF JUDGE(s) |
Present: Mr. Justice Naimatullah Phulpoto
Mr. Justice Shamsuddin
Abbasi
For
hearing of main case
------------------------------------
31.01.2023
Mr. Nazir A. Shaikh,
advocate for appellant.
Mr. Hakim Ali Shaikh,
Addl: Advocate General Sindh
Mr. Muhammad Iqbal
Awan, Additional P.G.
Nadir Ali Tanwri,
Probation Officer, Home Department
---------------------------------------------------
Muhammad Khalid son of Muhammad Yousuf, appellant was tried by learned Additional Sessions
Judge-I/MCTC-I/Special Court (CNS), Karachi Central for offence under Sections
9(b) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. On the conclusion of
trial, vide judgment dated 29.03.2022, the appellant was convicted under
Section 9(b) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and sentenced to suffer
R.I. for two (2) years and fine of Rs.100,000/- and in default thereof, to
suffer SI for fifteen days more. Appellant was extended benefit of Section 382(b),
Cr.PC.
Trial court, after convicting the
appellant, handed over the custody of the appellant to the Probation Officer in
the following terms:
“I take lenient view in sending accused on probation
instead of sentencing as the court has not received any complaint regarding
behavior and attitude of accused, there is no previous criminal
record/conviction of accused. Accused being first offender.
The offence does not fall within ambit of section 5(1)(a),
and Section 5(1)(b) of the Probation of Offenders Ordinance, 1960 or any of its
rules,
Instead sentencing accused, order to send him on
probation to mend his ways only for one year and improve his character so that
he may become a useful citizen in the main stream of life and to lead a normal
life so also to save his family members from harsh facts of the hard life in
poverty. Accused present on bail, his custody handed over to probation officer.
Accused is directed not to repeat the offence, not to change the address
without intimation to Probation Officer. Accused shall also maintain good
behavior and to appear before the court as and when called for sentencing or
otherwise. The fine amount shall be paid by accused within period of six months
from today and in case of failure he shall serve out the sentence as above in
case of default in payment of fine amount (or the period may include as
undergone if it is equal to sentence in case of default). The probation officer
is directed to implement this order as per law and relevant rules strictly and
submit the required reports accordingly. Accused is warned that if any breach
of terms and conditions of this order or bond executed is committed, the
sentence shall be executed accordingly.”
Appellant filed appeal before this
Court, on 13.04.2022, this Court noted from the impugned judgment that the
appellant has been released on probation. Notices were issued to the appellant,
Advocate General Sindh and Home Secretary, Government of Sindh, with direction
to file statement before this Court, setting out that who is the Probation
Officer in respect of the appellant and ensure attendance of the Probation
Officer before this Court for today.
The Secretary to Government of
Sindh, Home Department submitted the report and mentioned that Mr. Nadir Ali Tanwri is the concerned Probation Officer. Today, Probation
Officer is present, however, counsel for the
appellant, after seeking instructions from appellant Shakeel
son of Sagheer, did
not press the instant appeal, the same is dismissed as not pressed.
Before parting with the order, it is
observed that if the appellant fails to observe any of the conditions of his
bond executed before the trial Court, the trial Court may issue summons or warrants
of his arrest and, if, after hearing the appellant the trial Court is satisfied
that he has failed to observe any of the conditions of his bond, the trial
Court may sentence him by restoring his original sentence and if the appellant
fails to pay the compensation he shall be dealt with in terms of Section 6(3)
of the Ordinance, 1960 in view of the law enunciated in the case of Adeel Rasheed versus The State and another (PLD 2022
Supreme Court 795).
J U D G E
J
U D G E
Gulsher/PS