Imdad Ganwas vs State S — 2026 MLD 931 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

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

Imdad Ganwas VS State S. 9(c)---Control of Narcotic Substances (Amendment) Act (XX of 2022), S. 6---Possession of narcotic substances---Appreciation of evidence---Sentencing policy---Prosecution case was that 3000-grams charas was recovered from the possession of accused---Appellant was arrested on 12.03.2023 and allegedly 3000 grams contraband material viz. Charas was recovered from his possession---Trial Court found appellant guilty of the offence, hence convicted and sentenced him---Admittedly, S.9 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 was amended through Act No XX of 2022 which was assented to by the President on 02.09.2022 and published in Official Gazette on 06.09.2022---Offence of narcotic substances committed after 06.09.2022 was triable under the provisions of amended Act No XX of 2022---Amendment Act XX of 2022 introduced a sentencing policy, wherein the legislature in its wisdom provided a minimum and maximum sentence for quantity of different Narcotic substances---Trial Court convicted the appellant under the provisions of old law, which was not in existence at the time of commission of crime and stood substituted through S.6 of the Amendment Act XX of 2022---Amendment in the Act 1997 through Act No XX of 2022 came into force on 06.09.2022, the date of its publication in official Gazette---Alleged offence was committed on 12.03.2023, thus accused was tried under the amended law and the lowest mandated sentence for possessing contraband charas of quantity in between 1000 grams and 4999 grams under the amended law was imprisonment for nine years and fine of rupees eighty thousand---Trial Court determined that the prosecution had proved the case beyond shadow reasonable of doubt and by taking lenient view awarded conviction of four years' imprisonment which was not tenable under the law---Trial Court had no option but to maintain the quantum of sentence in between nine years and fourteen years with a fine of rupees eighty thousand to four hundred thousand rupees---When law provides alternative punishments for an offence, whether the minimum or maximum prescribed sentence, any sentence in between is to be imposed---Court seizes with the matter may have kept under consideration factors that include the facts of the case, the age of the accused at the time when he committed the crime, past and subsequent conduct for which reports can be called from concerned jail where the accused is detained and then award him a lesser punishment being mitigating circumstances, but cannot award a conviction which militates the statutory provisions---In such circumstances, the impugned judgment did not commend well with the law, as accused was convicted and sentenced under the law that did not hold field, thus was open to exception, warranting interference by the High Court---Appeal was allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment and the case was remanded to the Trial Court to re-write the judgment after providing an opportunity of hearing to the prosecution and defence on the basis of evidence available on record.

Imdad Ganwas vs State S — 2026 MLD 931 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 MLD