2008 PLP 1055 (YLR)

M. BILAL KHAN, J.

Asad Hameed Khan' son of Hameedullah Khan caste Pathan resident of Mochh District Mianwali was tried in case F.I.R. No.260 dated 23-12-1999 under section 9-C of CNSA 1997 at Police Station Mochh District Mianwali and was convicted by learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Mianwali vide impugned judgment dated 4-3-2002 and sentenced to ten years R.I. and a fine of Rs.20,000 in default of payment of which he was to suffer R.I. for one year.. Aggrieved by his conviction and sentence the appellant has filed this appeal. 2.' According to the prosecution the complainant Hashmat Ali, S.-I was present at Bridge Mochh along with Aman Ullah and Abdul Rehman ASIs and four constables, namely Muhammad Aslam, Muhammad Aslam, Abdullah and Sanaullah on 23-12-1999 at about 12-15 noon where he received a spy information that Asad Hameed accused appellant had arranged gambling in front of his house at a public roard and was selling narcotics as a result of which a raid was conducted on the Baithak of the accused Assad Hameed. Wali Dad Khan, Amanullah, Rafiullah and Muhammad Mumtaz were found gambling and the accused was also present there with a small iron box in his right arm-pit. On seeing the police party the accused ran away from the spot while throwing away the iron box. Out of the said iron box 4 KG of charas was recovered wrapped in four plastic papers. Each packet weighed I KG. Out of the said charas 10 grams out of each packet were separated for chemical analysis. Regarding this incident F.I.R. No.260 was recorded on 23-12-1999 under section .9-C of CNSA at Police Station Mochh District Mianwali. After completing rudimentary formalities Hashmat Ali, S.-I. submitted the challan on 5-3-2001. The witnesses of recovery in this case were all public servants who had no background of ill-will or bitterness against the appellant so as to falsely implicate him in a case of this nature. The said witnesses had made consistent statements before the learned trial Court and their statements had not only impressed the learned trial Court but the same have also inspired our confidence.

3. In these circumstances the learned counsel for the appellant has sated that he does not challenge the conviction of the appellant recorded by the learned trial Court but he only prays for reduction of the sentence of the appellant.

4. As against that the learned counsel for the State has maintained that as long as the conviction of the appellant was not disturbed by this Court he has nothing much to say on the question of sentence as the same lies within the discretion of the Court. While looking at the appellant's sentence of imprisonment we have found the same to be rather excessive, keeping in view the quantity of recovered narcotic.

5. For what has been discussed above, this appeal is dismissed to the extent of the appellant's conviction recorded by the learned trial Court but the same is partly allowed to the extent of the appellant's sentence of imprisonment which is hereby reduced to five years. The sentence of fine is reduced to Rs.5,000 in default in the payment of which he shall suffer imprisonment for three months. With the above modification in the sentence of the appellant, this appeal is hereby disposed of. N.H.Q./A-190/L????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Sentence reduced.