2008 PLP 797 (YLR)

TARIQ SHAMIM, J.

Mst. Khalida Parveen appellant was tried incase F.I.R. No.146 dated 8-3-2005 for offence under Section 9(b) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act registered at Police Station, Statellite Town, District Sargodha by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sargodha and vide judgment dated 31-3-2006 the said learned trial Court sentenced her to suffer two years' R.I and a fine of Rs. 30,000 or in default thereof S.I. for two months. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. was also given to her. Being aggrieved of the said conviction and sentence the appellant has filed Crl. Appeal No 531 of 2006.

2. According to the F.I.R. Ex. PB/1 on a secret information Aman Ullah S.I. along with other officials reached in front of Imam Bargah Goandal Town, Sargodha and apprehended Mst. Khalida Bibi appellant, who was selling narcotic. On her personal search by Mst. Sughran Bibi, lady Constable 510 grams heroin was recovered from the fold of her Shalwar which was taken into possession. Out of which 1 gram heroin was separated and sealed it into a sample sealed parcel. The sample sealed parcel was sent to the office of the Chemical Examiner for analysis and according to the report of the Chemical Examiner the sample sealed parcel contained heroin. After completion of the investigation, the appellant was 'challaned and put to trial for prosecution. Charge was framed to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3. The trial Court after conclusion of the trial heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant instead of arguing the appeal on merits, conceding the impugned judgment, frankly prayed that the sentence of the appellant may kindly be reduced to one already undergone by her, to which the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has no objection.

5. The appellant was arrested on 8-3-2005. - She was granted bail on 29-9-2005 and at the time of pronounce ment of judgment on 31-3-2006 she was again sent to jail to serve her imprisonment and is behind the bars since then. Keeping in view the facts and circumstance of the case,' we think that the sentence of imprisonment already undergone by the appellant would meet the ends of justice.

6. In this view of the matter, while maintaining the conviction of the appellant we reduce her sentence to that of already undergone. We also reduce the fine to Rs.5,000 or in default two months' S.I. She shall be released from jail and set at liberty forthwith if not required to be detained in any other case. With this modification in the sentence, this appeal is disposed of. H.B.T./K-57/L Order accordingly.