THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI

Criminal Appeal No. 693 of 2024

Present: Mr. Justice Omar Sial

Mr. Justice Shamsuddin Abbasi

Appellants : Shakeel alias Mama son of Muhammad Shahid and Farman Ali son of Muhammad Ismail, through Mr. Inamullah Khan, Advocate

Respondent : The State through Mr. Habib Ahmed, Special Prosecutor ANF

Date of Hearing : 16.04.2026

Date of Judgment : 23.04.2026

JUDGMENT

SHAMSUDDIN ABBASI, J.- Appellants Shakeel alias Mama and Farman Ali were tried by learned Judge, Special Court No.I (CNS), Karachi in Special Case No.373 of 2017. On conclusion of trial, vide judgment dated 06.09.2024, appellants were convicted under Section 9(c) of the CNS Act 1997 and sentenced to undergo 4 years and 6 months R.I. and to pay fine of Rs.20,000/- each, in default whereof to undergo S.I. for 5 months more. Appellants were extended benefit of Section 382(b) Cr.PC.

2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 03.05.2017 at about 1830 hours, on spy information, ANF officials arrested the present appellants, having blue shoppers, containing charas of small and big pieces, which was weighed as 1100 grams from each applicant/accused, hence the subject FIR.

3. During investigation, chars was sent to chemical examiner, positive report of chemical examiner was received. On conclusion of investigation, challan was submitted against the appellant under the above referred sections. Trial Court framed Charge against appellants at Ex.2 under the above referred sections. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. At trial, prosecution examined four witnesses. Thereafter, learned DDPP closed the prosecution side vide statement at Ex.7.

5. Trial Court recorded statement of accused under Section 342 Cr.P.C at Ex.9. Appellants claimed false implication in the present case and denied the prosecution allegations. Appellants neither examined themselves on oath under section 340(2) Cr.P.C in disproof of the prosecution allegations nor led any evidence in their defense.

6. Trial Court, after hearing learned counsel for appellants, prosecutor and while examining the evidence minutely by judgment dated 06.09.2024, convicted and sentenced the appellants as stated above. Hence, the instant appeal.

7. Learned advocate for appellants after arguing the appeal at some length, did not press the same on merits but submits that lenient view in the sentence of appellants may be taken on the ground that appellants are young persons, they are sole supporters of their old parents and families. It is also submitted that appellants are not previously convicted and they intend to reform their lives.

8. Learned Special Prosecutor ANF argued that prosecution has succeeded in proving its case against the appellants.

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 appellants beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt. Appellants were found in possession of 1100 grams of chars each and report of chemical examiner is positive. Evidence of ANF 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 accused 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 06.09.2024 requires no interference by this Court. Resultantly conviction is maintained.

10. As regards to the quantum of sentence is concerned, in the case of State through Deputy Director (Law), Regional Directorate, Anti-Narcotics Force vs. Mujahid Naseem Lodhi (PLD 2017 SC 671), in the matter of sentence, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that "in a particular case carrying some special features relevant to the matter of sentence a Court may depart from the norms and standards prescribed above but in all such cases the Court concerned shall be obliged to record its reasons for such departure." In the present case, learned Advocate for the appellants did not press appeal on merits. It is submitted by him that appellants are young men and they are sole supporters of their old parents and families. It is also submitted that appellants are not previously convicted and they intend to reform their lives. As per jail roll dated 15.04.2026, the both the appellants have already served out sentence including remission 03 years, 08 months and 29 days, therefore, in these peculiar circumstances, a case for reduction of the sentence of the appellants is made out for the reason that alleged incident took place on 03.05.2017 and as per Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 punishment was provided which may extend to 14 years, therefore, learned trial Court has awarded sentence for a period of 4 years and six months. Learned counsel for the appellants has taken plea that appellants are first offenders and they have no previous criminal record and they are sole bread earners for their families and they intend to reform their lives. .

11. For the above stated reasons, appeal is dismissed on merits, however, sentence of the appellants is reduced from R.I. for 4 years and 6 months to the period which the appellants have already undergone. The fine amount will remain the same including sentence period in lieu of fine.

12. Subject to above modification in the sentence, the Appeal is disposed of in the above terms.

J U D G E

J U D G E

Gulsher/PS