IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
 
PRESENT: 
Mr. Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, ACJ 
Mr. Justice Dost Muhammad Khan 
 
 
 
Criminal Petition No. 32 of 2017 and Criminal Miscellaneous 
Application No. 54 of 2017 
(Against the order dated 30.11.2016 passed by the Lahore High 
Court, Lahore in Criminal Appeal No. 1501 of 2015) 
 
 
 
 
State 
through 
the 
Deputy 
Director 
(Law), 
Regional 
Directorate, Anti-Narcotics Force 
…Petitioner 
 
 
 
 
 
versus 
 
Mujahid Naseem Lodhi 
 
 
 
  
 
     …Respondent 
                
 
 
 
For the petitioner: 
Raja Inaam Ameen Minhas, Special 
Prosecutor, Anti-Narcotics Force 
 
Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR 
Mr. M. Tariq, Deputy Director (Law) 
 
For the respondent: 
In person.  
 
On Court’s Notice: 
Syed 
Nayyab 
Hussain 
Gardezi, 
Assistant 
Attorney-General 
for 
Pakistan 
 
Date of hearing: 
 
 
05.07.2017  
 
 
ORDER 
 
 
Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, ACJ.: 
The respondent namely 
Mujahid Naseem Lodhi had been booked in case FIR No. 36 
registered at Police Station Anti-Narcotics Force, Lahore on 
24.07.2012 in respect of an offence under section 9(c) read with 
section 15 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 with an 
Criminal Petition No. 32 of 2017  
 
2 
allegation that he was apprehended while in possession of heroin 
weighing 3100 grams (3.100 kilograms). In the same case an 
allegation had also been leveled against the respondent’s co-
accused namely Muhammad Suneel that he was apprehended 
while in possession of heroin weighing 900 grams. During the trial 
the said Muhammad Suneel co-accused admitted his guilt and 
confessed before the trial court and on such admission of guilt by 
him he was convicted by the trial court for an offence under 
section 9(b) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and 
was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for four months and fine. 
Later on during the same trial the present respondent namely 
Mujahid Naseem Lodhi also admitted his guilt, confessed and 
showed remorse and repentance on the basis of which he was 
convicted by the trial court for an offence under section 9(c) of the 
Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and was sentenced to 
rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine. The State through 
the Anti-Narcotics Force sought enhancement of the respondent’s 
sentence through an appeal which was dismissed by the High 
Court and now the same relief has been sought by the State 
through the present petition before this Court.  
 
2. 
On 20.03.2017 this Court had raised some queries regarding 
competence of the State to file an appeal seeking enhancement of a 
convict’s sentence and also regarding competence of a Special 
Prosecutor, Anti-Narcotics Force to file an appeal before this Court 
and in respect of such queries notice was issued to the respondent 
as well as to the learned Attorney-General for Pakistan.  
 
3. 
We have heard the learned Special Prosecutor, Anti-
Narcotics Force, the learned Assistant Attorney-General for 
Pakistan and the respondent appearing in person on the above 
mentioned issues as well as on the merits of the case.  
 
4. 
The questions of law noticed above do not require any 
pronouncement by this Court through the present petition because 
the same have already been attended to and authoritatively 
Criminal Petition No. 32 of 2017  
 
3 
answered in the judgment passed by this Court in the case of The 
State through Director-General, Anti-Narcotics Force v. Abdul Jabbar 
alias Jabbara (Criminal Appeal No. 254 of 2014 decided on 
18.05.2010).  
 
5. 
As regards the prayer made through the present petition 
regarding enhancement of the respondent’s sentence the learned 
Special Prosecutor, Anti-Narcotics Force has mainly relied upon 
the judgment handed down by a Full Bench of the Lahore High 
Court, Lahore in the case of Ghulam Murtaza and another v. The 
State (PLD 2009 Lahore 362) wherein some guidelines had been 
laid down vis-à-vis sentencing in cases of narcotic substances and 
has maintained that the sentence passed by the trial court against 
the respondent was not in accord with the said guidelines. The 
said judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore had approvingly 
been referred to by this Court in the case of Ameer Zeb v. The State  
(PLD 2012 SC 380). We note that in paragraph No. 10 of the 
judgment handed down by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in the 
above mentioned case it had been 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 case in 
hand the trial court had recorded reasons for passing a sentence 
against the respondent which made a departure from the above 
mentioned sentencing guidelines. The trial court had observed that 
the respondent had made a confession before the trial court 
besides expressing remorse and repentance with an assurance not 
to deal with narcotics in future. It was also noticed by the trial 
court that the respondent’s co-accused namely Muhammad Suneel 
had also made a confession before the trial court and on the basis 
of such confession he was also awarded a sentence which departed 
from the above mentioned sentencing guidelines but the State had 
not sought enhancement of his sentence. The High Court had 
refused to enhance the respondent’s sentence and had dismissed 
an appeal filed by the State in that regard by holding that the 
Criminal Petition No. 32 of 2017  
 
4 
above mentioned considerations weighing with the trial court for 
passing a reduced sentence against the respondent were 
appropriate in the circumstances of the present case. The exercise 
of jurisdiction and discretion in the matter of the respondent’s 
sentence by the trial court and the High Court have not been found 
by us to be open to any legitimate exception, particularly when the 
reasons recorded for passing a reduced sentence against the 
respondent and for making a departure from the above mentioned 
sentencing guidelines have been found by us to be proper in the 
peculiar circumstances of this case. This petition is, therefore, 
dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.  
 
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 54 of 2017 
 
6. 
As the main petition has been dismissed by this Court today, 
therefore, the interim relief already allowed through the present 
miscellaneous application is withdrawn and recalled. This 
miscellaneous application is dismissed.  
 
 
 
Acting Chief Justice 
Judge 
Islamabad 
05.07.2017 
Approved for reporting.  
 
Arif    
 
 
