4. Owning or possessing intoxicant.--Whoever owns, possesses or keeps in his custody any intoxicant shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with whipping not exceeding thirty stripes, and shall also be liable to fine:

Provided that nothing contained in this Article shall apply to a non-Muslim foreigner or to a non-Muslim Citizen of Pakistan who keeps in his custody at or about the time of ceremony prescribed by his religion a reasonable quantity of intoxicating liquor for the purpose of using it as a part of such ceremony.

[Provided further that, if the intoxicant in respect of which the offence is committed is heroin, cocaine, [* * *] opium or coca leaf, and the quantity exceeds ten grams in the case of heroin or cocaine or one kilogram in the case of raw opium or coca leaf, the offender shall be punishable with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment which is not less than two years and with whipping not exceeding thirty stripes and shall also be able to fine.]

COMMENTARY

Petitioner was a non-muslim and was entitled under law to purchase, possess, transport or consumer intoxicating liquor provided he holds a valid permit under law. Appellant produced on photostat copy of permit issued to him by the District Excise & Taxation Officer, in which the appellant was allowed six bottles of liquor per month. But he was in possession of liquor for more then the allocated quota. Case of mitigating circumstance was established without any doubt in favour of petitioner. Conviction upheld. Petitioner was on bail, accordingly his bail bond cancelled and sureties discharged. He was free to go anywhere. PLJ 2008 FSC 172.

The power available u/S. 420 Cr.P.C., which enables the Court to suspend sentences inflicted on appellants pending disposal of appeals cannot be regulated rather suppressed by provisions of Ss. 496 and 497 Cr.P.C.. Bail to a convicted person is not a matter of right irrespective of the fact that offence for which he has been found guilty is bailable or non-bailable. Legislature wanted Court of appeal to apply its mind independently to question of grant of bail. PLJ 2005 FSC 65.

Possession Liquor could not have been sentenced to undergo three years imprisonment as Art. 4 of Prohibition Order 1979 provide for imposition of a maximum sentence of two years imprisonment for keeping in possession any quantity of intoxicant and impugned judgment therefore extent was not sustainable. PLJ 2005 FSC 65.