KARACHI: The Sindh High Court has stated that the punishment for an offence committed by a person is awarded for retribution, deterrence and in order to strengthen the society by reforming the guilty.

A two-judge bench of the SHC headed by acting Chief Justice Zafar Ahmed Rajput also noted that these were various kinds of offences where a lesser punishment might serve the ends of justice by allowing room for the offenders’ moral and social reformation.

The bench made these observations while deciding appeals filed by two appellants against the conviction order of a trial court in a drug trafficking case.

A special court for control of narcotic substances had sentenced Haq Nawaz and Muhammad Nazeer to four-year imprisonment and imposed fines in March this year for carrying 1,250 and 1,150 grams of hashish respectively in Gulistan-i-Jauhar in July 2014.

Thereafter, both the convicts through their counsel filed appeals against the conviction order of the trial court.

There are offences where a lesser punishment better serves the ends of justice, remarks CJ

However, the counsel informed the bench that appellant Haq Nawaz was released from the Central Prison around a couple of months ago on finishing of sentence on remission system and did not press his appeal.

The lawyer also did not press the appeal of the second appellant on merits, but pleaded to reduce his sentence for a period he has already undergone as he was not previously convicted of any offence and with remission appellant has already served out more than two years and three months.

A special prosecutor Anti-Narcotic Force also supported the request of the counsel for appellant for reduction of the sentence.

The bench in its order said that as per the jail roll, the appellant has served out sentence of around two years and over three months including remissions.

“We are conscious of the fact that the punishment for any offence committed by a person is awarded for retribution, deterrence and in order to strengthen the society by reforming the guilty. 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,” it added.

The bench also noted that the law itself classified offences distinctly as in some instances punishment was mandated with the expression “not less than” denoting a fixed minimum while in others, the law provided flexibility through terms like “may extend to” or “may extend up to”.

It further observed that the legislative contrast signified that in the latter category, the courts were expected to exercise judicial discretion by taking into account specific facts and circumstances of the case.

It said, “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”.

The bench also stated that the appellant has faced the agony of trial for 12 years and therefore, the court was inclined to give him an opportunity for reformation.

“Subsequently,” it said that impugned judgment to the extent of conviction awarded to appellant was maintained, but the sentence awarded to him by the trial court was reduced to already a period undergone.

Published in Dawn, November 30th, 2025