State vs MUHAMMAD ALTAF S — 2025 PLD 235 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

State VS MUHAMMAD ALTAF S. 9(c)---Punjab Criminal Prosecution Service (Constitution, Functions and Powers) Act (III of 2006), S. 9(8)---Possession of narcotic---Appreciation of evidence---Confession of guilt---Sentence, quantum of---Prosecution case was that 2300 grams charas was recovered from the possession of accused---Accused who sought sentence on the basis of his plea of guilt, in turn helped in reducing the costs of trial---If after attending the processes of trial the accused was to meet a particular sentence range then the Court could record plea of guilt at any stage, even mid-way, if accused was ready to assist and facilitate the system for cost-reduction of prosecution case and could reward the accused with minimum sentence range as a State bounty---As per S. 9(8) of the Punjab Criminal Prosecution Service (Constitution, Functions and Powers) Act, 2006, on pleading guilty by the accused, prosecutors were required to suggest appropriate sentence range---As per 'Code of Conduct for Prosecutors' issued under S. 17 of Criminal Prosecution Service (Constitution, Functions and Powers) Act, 2006, while applying 'Full Code Test' which included evidential test and public interest test, it could be applied at any appropriate stage keeping in view the requirement of the said Code---Prosecutors should ensure that prosecution of an offence must be a "Proportionate Response" which meant that quantum of sentence must commensurate to the costs of prosecution---When an accused voluntarily admitted his guilt before the Court, he must be dealt with more leniently in terms of quantum of sentence---Appeal was dismissed in limine, in circumstances.

State vs MUHAMMAD ALTAF S — 2025 PLD 235 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PLD