IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI

Criminal Appeal No.836 of 2024

Criminal Appeal No.194 of 2025

Present: Mr. Justice Omar Sial

Mr. Justice Shamsuddin Abbasi

----------------------------------------

Appellant: Bazeez Khan son of Haji Bahadur through M/s Abdul Malik, Mohsin and Abdul Qudoos, Advocates

Respondent: The State through Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Awan, Additional Prosecutor General Sindh

Date of hearing: 13.05.2026

Date of Judgment: 13.05.2026

J U D G M E N T

SHAMSUDDIN ABBASI, J. --- Appellant Bazeez Khan son of Haji Bahadur was tried by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I/MCTC, Malir Karachi in Sessions Case No.4824 of 2022, arising out of FIR No.3/2022, registered at P.S. Excise Malir, Karachi for offence under 6/9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. After full-dressed trial, vide judgment dated 12.11.2024, appellant was convicted under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and sentenced to 14 years R.I. and to pay fine of Rs.400,000/-, in default whereof to undergo S.I. for 2 months more, with benefit of section 382-B of Cr.PC.

2. Briefly the facts of the prosecution case are that on 01.11.2022 at about 2300 hours, on spy information, the excise police stopped Rickshaw bearing Registration No.10779-D19, driven by appellant and recovered 5 packets of charas weights 6080 grams, hence the subject FIR.

3. After completing all the formalities, report under section 173, Cr.P.C. was submitted before the trial Court and charge was framed at Ex.2, to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. At trial, prosecution examined PW-1/complainant Inspector Liaquat Ali at Ex.5, PW-2 TI Muhammad Nasir Baloch at Ex.6 and PW-3 AETO Ahmed Yar at Ex.9. Thereafter, prosecution side was closed at Ex.10.

5. Statement of accused under Section 342, Cr.PC was recorded at Ex.8, wherein he denied the prosecution allegations and claimed his false implication in the instant case. However, neither he opted to be examined himself on oath nor led any evidence in disproof of prosecution allegations.

6. Learned trial Court, after hearing the learned counsel for appellant as well as learned ADPP and perusal of the material available on record, convicted the appellant for offence under sections 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and sentenced him as stated above. Hence, the instant appeal against the impugned judgment.

7. Learned counsel for appellant at the very outset does not press the appeal on merits if the conviction and sentence is reduced from 14 years R.I. to some reasonable extent, keeping in view the fact that he is not a previous convict and is only the sole bread earner of his family and a chance may be given to him to rehabilitate himself.

8. On the other hand, learned Additional Prosecutor General Sindh argued that the prosecution has proved its case and the appellant has been rightly convicted and sentenced by the learned trial Court vide impugned judgment. However, he does not oppose the proposal given by the learned counsel for appellant to reduce the sentence from 14 years to some reasonable extent.

9. We have carefully heard learned counsels and perused the entire evidence available on record. From perusal of evidence it transpires that prosecution has successfully proved its case against the appellant beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt. Appellant was found in possession of 6080 grams of charas but as per chemical report net weight to recovered narcotics is 6040 gram. Evidence of police officials on material particulars of the case is trustworthy and confidence inspiring. It is matter of record that these witnesses were subjected to the lengthy cross-examination but nothing favourable to appellant, except minor discrepancies, could be sucked. In these circumstances, we have no hesitation to hold that trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence according to settled principles of law as such conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court vide judgment dated 12.11.2024 requires no interference by this Court. Resultantly conviction is maintained. In the instant case, since the appellant is neither previously convicted of any offence nor is there any instance of his involvement in narcotics cases, we are inclined to give him an opportunity for reformation.

10. Learned Counsel for appellant mainly contended that case of appellant falls under the Sindh Control of Narcotic Substances (Amendment) Act, 2021 on the ground that the alleged incident occurred on 01.11.2022 and the Control of Narcotic Substances (Amendment) Act, 2021 was in the field and later on Control of Narcotic Substances (Amendment) Act, 2024 was promulgated. This Court in Criminal Jail Appeal No.550/2025 resolved the controversy about two enactments which simultaneously are in field and has observed as under:

“9. We take the view that Sindh Amendment Act, 2021 and Federal Amendment Act, 2022 are not quae inter dissident. Sindh Amendment Act, 2021 was made applicable in Province of Sindh meaning thereby Provincial Police of Sindh was empowered to take cognizance of any offence under the Act of 1997 while, under Federal Amendment Act, 2022, the Federal Agencies i.e. Anti Narcotic Force (ANF), Customs, etc. are empowered to take cognizance of the offence under the Act of 1997 throughout Pakistan including Province of Sindh. Moreover, Federal Amendment Act, 2022 has not repealed the Sindh Amendment Act, 2021.

10. We are, therefore, of the view that in the instant case, FIR lodged and the appellant tried and convicted under sections 9 (1) column (3) (d) of the TABLE of the Federal Amendment Act, 2022 was not in accordance with law. As on the day of commission of alleged offence i.e. 13.02.2023, the Sindh Amendment Act, 2021 was enforced in the Province of Sindh. The instant case has not been lodged by any Federal Agency, i.e. A.N.F, Pakistan Customs, etc. Hence, the provisions of Act of 1997, as amended vide Federal Amendment Act, 2022, did not attract to the case in hand, but the provisions of section 9 (b) of the Sindh Amendment Act, 2021, which provides sentence for contravention of section 6 of the Act (ibid) imprisonment which may extend to seven years but shall not be less than three years and shall also be liable to fine upto rupees five lac but shall not be less than rupees one lac if the quantity of psychotropic substance or Page 5 of 6 controlled substance or narcotic drug category (i) exceeds one hundred grams but does not exceed one kilogram, or if the quantity of narcotic drug category (ii) is fifty gram or less; Hence, we modify the conviction of the appellant recorded by the Trial Court under section 9 (1) column (3) (b) of the Federal Amendment Act, 2022 and convert it in section 9 (b) of the Sindh Amendment Act, 2021.

11. It is well established that punishment for an offence serves not only as a means of retribution but also as a tool for deterrence and a mechanism to strengthen the fabric of society through the rehabilitation of the offender. The law itself classifies offences distinctly. In some instances, punishment is mandated with the expression “not less than,” denoting a fixed minimum, while in others, the law provides flexibility through terms like “may extend to” or “may extend up to.” This legislative contrast signifies that, in the latter category, the courts are expected to exercise judicial discretion by taking into account the specific facts and circumstances of the case. These are the kinds of offences where a lesser punishment may serve the ends of justice by allowing room for the offender’s moral and social reformation.

12. In the case of Niaz-ud-Din v. The State (2007 SCMR 206) the Apex Court, in a case of recovery of 5-kilogram heroin, reduced the sentence of imprisonment from 10 to 6 years considering that the accused was not previously convicted and there was no instance of his involvement in drug trafficking, hence, he was given a chance in his life to rehabilitate himself. In the instant case, since the appellant is neither previously convicted of any offence nor is there any instance of his involvement in narcotics cases, we are inclined to give him an opportunity for reformation. We, therefore, deem it appropriate to reduce/modify his sentence awarded by the Trial Court i.e. R.I for six (06) years to R.I. for three (03) years; and to pay a fine of Page 6 of 6 Rs. 100,000/-, and in default thereof, to undergo S.I for three (03) months more.”

11. In view of the dicta laid down by this Court and apex Court in Niaz-ud-Din’s case (supra), we are taking lenient view. Moreover, the net weight shown in the report of chemical examiner is 6040 grams of charas. Alleged recovery was effected on 01.11.2022 and Control of Narcotic Substances (Amendment) Act, 2021 was enforced in the Province of Sindh and instant case was lodged by Sindh Police. As per Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Sindh (Amendment) Act, 2021, punishment provided for recovery of charas upto 10 Kgs. is death, imprisonment for life or for a period which may extend to 14 years. Provided that if the quantity charas exceeds 10 kilograms, the punishment shall not be less than imprisonment for life. As per jail roll dated 13.05.2026, the appellant has served out substance sentence of 3 Years, 6 Months and 12 Days. Since counsel for appellant has not contested his case on merits and has taken the plea that appellant is first offender, he is aged about 60 years, he is not previously convicted in any offence, he is sole bread earner of his family and intends to reform himself. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to reduce his sentence awarded to appellant by learned trial Court i.e. R.I for 14 years to R.I. for seven (07) years; however, the fine amount i.e. Rs.400,000/- and sentence in default whereof shall remain intact. He shall be entitled to the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.PC as well as remission in accordance with law.

12. The instant criminal appeals stand dismissed with above alteration in conviction and modification in sentence.

J U D G E

Gulsher/PS