IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT,

LARKANA

Crl. Jail Appeal No. D- 20 of 2023.

Present:

Mr. Justice Muhammad Saleem Jessar.

Mr. Justice Khadim Hussain Soomro.

Guhram Pahore. ……….………...Appellant.

Versus

The State. ……......…..….Respondent.

The appellant present in custody.

Mr. Aitbar Ali Bullo, Deputy Prosecutor General.

Date of hearing: 22.11.2023.

Date of Judgment: 22.11.2023.

Judgment

Muhammad Saleem Jessar, J-. Through this criminal appeal, appellant Guhram son of Dhani Bux Pahore has assailed the judgment dated 09.08.2023, delivered by learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge for CNS, Shikarpur, in Special case No. 78 of 2022, emanating from F.I.R No. 05 of 2022 of P.S Stuart Ganj, Shikarpur, 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 nine years and to pay fine of Rs.80,000/- 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. The appellant has been produced in custody by the jail authorities. He submits that he has completed mostly the major portion of sentence awarded to him and that he has been lying ill in the jail. He further submits that, he is ready not to press the instant appeal on merit, if his sentence is reduced to that of already undergone, as he has sufficiently been punished for remaining in jail and he may be given a chance in his life to rehabilitate himself. Per appellant, he is not a previous convict and he is sole breadwinner of his entire family, who are on starvation due to his confinement in jail.

3. On other hand Mr. Aitbar Ali Bullo, learned D.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 fresh jail-roll of the appellant dated 22.11.2023, he has served out substantive sentence for one year, ten months and six days. Besides, he has earned remissions for four years, three months and fourteen days; totaling to six years, one month and 20 days, which appears to be an adequate portion of sentence.

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 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 of the appellant 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 shall be released forthwith, if he is not required to be kept under custody in any other case.

Judge

Ansari