IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI

Criminal Appeal No.501 of 2025

Present: Mr. Justice Omar Sial

Mr. Justice Shamsuddin Abbasi

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

Appellant: Hazrat Sher through Mr. Hashmat Khalid, advocate

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

Date of hearing: 29.04.2026

Date of Judgment: 04.05.2026

J U D G M E N T

SHAMSUDDIN ABBASI, J. --- Appellant Hazrat Sher son of Muhammad Sher was tried by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge-IV/MCTC, Karachi South in Special Case No.572 of 2024, arising out of FIR No.686/2023, registered at P.S. Boat Basin, Karachi for offence under Section 9(1)(3)(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Amendment) Act, 2022. After full-dressed trial, vide judgment dated 26.06.2025, appellant was convicted under section 9(1)3(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Amendment) Act, 2022 and sentenced to nine (9) years R.I. and to pay fine of Rs.100,000/-, in default whereof to undergo S.I. for 20 days more, with benefit of section 382-B of Cr.PC.

2. Briefly the facts of the prosecution case are that on 07.12.2023 at about 0130 hours, appellant was arrested by police and from his possession recovered 1200 grams charas, 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 SIP Abid Hussain at Ex.3, PW-2/Mashir PC Muhammad Munir at Ex.4, PW-3/IO/PI Abdul Ghaffar at Ex.5 and PW-4/Head Mohrar ASI Faisal Ahmed at Ex.6. Thereafter, prosecution side was closed at Ex.7.

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 applicant as well as learned DDPP and perusal of the material available on record, convicted the appellant for offence under sections 9(1)3(c) of the CNS (Amendment) Act, 2022 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 9 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 9 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 1200 grams of charas but as per chemical report net weight to recovered narcotics is 1196 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 26.06.2025 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 applicant 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 07.12.2023 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 1196 grams of charas and 196 grams exceeds from 1000 grams, which changes the category from 9(b) to 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Sindh (Amendment) Act, 2021 and makes out a case of border line, therefore, we deem it appropriate to reduce his sentence awarded by learned trial Court i.e. R.I for nine (9) years to R.I. for five (05) years; however, the fine amount i.e. Rs.100,000/- is also reduced to Rs.50,000/- (rupees ten thousand), in default whereof to undergo S.I. for 20 days. He shall be entitled to the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.PC.

12. The instant criminal appeal stands dismissed with above alteration in conviction and modification in sentence.

J U D G E

Gulsher/PS