Criminal Revision Application No.182 of 2012
Date Order with signature of the Judge
1. For order on MA No.5750/2012 (Exemption).
2. For Katcha Peshi.
--------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Shafique Ahmed, Special Prosecutor for ANF.
-------------------------
1. Exemption is granted subject to all just exceptions.
2. Learned Special Prosecutor contends that upon recovery of 27.600 kgs of opium and 66 kgs. of charras the respondent was arrested in Crime No.33/2010 under section 9(c) of the CNS Act, 1997 and was tried by Special Court-I at Karachi. The charge against the accused was framed on 27.01.2011 in which he pleaded not guilty. Thereafter, on 22.12.2011 the respondent/accused pleaded guilty and was convicted and sentenced to the period already undergone. The order neither reflects the period which the respondent remained behind the bars nor the quantum of narcotic substances recovered from him. The Prosecutor further says that neither the SPP conceded for lessor punishment as is narrated in impugned order nor the Court could award lessor punishment even if there would have been concession from the STP, as the offence carried capital punishment.
We have gone through the order and have noticed that though the charge against the respondent was framed for an offence under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and recovery of 93.600 kgs. of narcotic substances was alleged from the respondent, but the Presiding Officer while passing order on plea of guilty on his own in a very questionable manner observed that the case of respondent was of connivance abatement and would fall within the ambit of Sections 14 and 15 of CNS Act, 1997 and further observed that the charge shall be deemed to have been stood altered and modified to such extent. This was all done without providing an opportunity to the prosecution to prove its case and convicted the respondent in a friendly manner in a case of capital punishment for only one year and seven months. This friendly conviction and sentence of period already undergone is not only in violation of Section 3(6)(2), Cr.P.C. but has deprived the State from meaningful right of appeal as the respondent stands released.
Additionally, the Presiding Officer while awarding lessor punishment recorded that accused is old by age, whereas, the ground for leniency pleaded by the respondent/accused through his application pleading guilty is that he is a young boy and a first offender which leaves no doubt that the order was for extraneous considerations. Further, we have gone through the application pleading guilty which is available at page-19 and are surprised to notice that except in heading the application no where states that the accused has pleaded guilty. Further in cases of capital punishment where at the time of framing charge the accused has not pleaded guilty and claimed trial, the conviction on such a casual application where the accused has not even pleaded guilty he could not have been punished lawfully. However, since in our opinion such conviction was managed friendly and arranged therefore, the Presiding Officer only sentenced the accused for the period he is already served.
We have observed in more than dozen of cases specially of this particular Presiding Officer wherein he has on plea of guilt in cases of capital punishment has awarded punishment of few months or 2 to 3 years and we are of the firm view that such decision and awarding of lessor punishment of-course are result of dishonest dispensation. We have recommended in more than dozen cases action against this particular Presiding Officer as we do not see any place in our judicial system for such a reckless and dishonest judicial officer. Let a copy of this order along with impugned order be placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice for initiating disciplinary proceedings against the Presiding Officer, as deemed fit. Let bailable warrants in the sum of Rs.50,000/- against the respondent be issued through concerned police station of ANF for 27th March 2013.
JUDGE
JUDGE