HIGH COURT
OF SINDH AT KARACHI
Criminal Jail Appeal No.478 of 2010
Present: Mr. Justice Naimatullah Phulpoto
Mr. Justice Rasheed Ahmed Soomro
Appellant: Salman son of Saidullah Khan
Respondent: The State through Ms. Firdous Faridi, Special Prosecutor Customs.
Date of Hearing : 11.08.2017
Date of Judgment : 11.08.2017
JUDGMENT
Appellant
Salman son of Saidullah Khan was tried by learned
Judge, Special Court-II, (CNS) Karachi in Special Case
No.261 of 2010. Appellant Salman pleaded guilty and was
convicted under section 9(b) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997
and sentenced to three (3) years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/-.
In case of default in payment of fine, he was ordered to suffer S.I. for 10 days. Accused was extended benefit of section
382-B, Cr.PC.
2. Appellant
preferred criminal jail appeal on 14.10.2010 through Superintendent, Central
Prison, Karachi, the same was admitted for regular
hearing on 12.11.2010. During pendency of the appeal jail roll dated 05.08.2017
was called for from the Senior Superintendent, Central Prison, Karachi. It is reported by him that appellant Salman son of Saidullah Khan convicted in Special Case No.261/2010, F.I.R. No.31/2010,
registered at P.S. Customs, under section 9(b) of the Control of Narcotic
Substances Act, 1997 was admitted in the Prison on 10.07.2010. Appellant has
been released from the Prison on 18.06.2012 on expiry of sentence on remission
system. Thereafter, notice was issued to appellant Salman for his appearance
before the Court on 11.08.2017 but he failed to appear. Notice was issued to
the counsel for the appellant as well as Special Prosecutor Customs but only
Special Prosecutor Customs appeared. It is clear from the record that appellant
is no more interested to contest his appeal, else he would have appeared. His
counsel has also chosen to remain absent.
3. We have
perused the judgment dated 28.09.2010 passed by the trial Court. It appears
that accused Salman had pleaded guilty to the charge. Trial court had rightly
convicted and sentenced him on pleading guilty and took the lenient view
keeping in view the young age of the accused. In these circumstances, we find
no reason to interfere in impugned judgment of the trial court. Conviction and
sentence recorded by the trial court vide judgment dated 28.09.2010 are
maintained. Appellant has already been released after undergoing the sentence,
as such, the appeal is dismissed.
J U D G E
J U D G E
Gulsher/PS