2002 PLP 1021(2) (YLR)

‑‑‑‑S.9(b)‑‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.397‑‑‑Appreciation of evidence‑‑ Accused had not challenged the validity of the convictions in both the cases against him but prayed only for directions under S.397, Cr. P. C. that the sentences in both the cases should run concurrently, and also for reduction of fine‑‑High Court amended the conviction order to the extent that sentences passed in both cases would run concurrently, sentence of fine was also substantially reduced in each case. Altaf Ibrahim Qureshi for Appellant. Muhammad Qasim Khan, Asstt. A.‑G. and Muhammad Shaukat for the State. Date of hearing: 1st January, 2002. M. A. SHAHID SADDIQUI, J.‑‑ This judgment shall dispose of Criminal Appeals.No.666 of 2001 and 667 of 2001. Ghulam Yasin; appellant in both the appeals has been convicted by Mr. Muqurab Khan, Additional Sessions Judge‑I, Layyah, vide two separate judgments dated 13‑9‑2001. In case F.I.R. No.228 dated 17‑7‑2000, the appellant/ accused has been convicted under section 9‑B of the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997, and sentenced to five years, R.I. and a fine of Rs.50,000 for having been found in possession of charas weighing one kilogram. In case F.I.R. No.230 dated 20‑7‑2001, the appellant/accused was found to have got recovered opium while in police custody in the case of the aforesaid F.I.R. No.228 of 2000. In this case also appellant has been convicted under section 9‑B of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and sentenced to five years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.50,

000. The learned trial Court while convicting the appellant in both the cases failed to order that the sentences shall run concurrently.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants without challenging the validity of the convictions in both the cases prayed for an order under section 397 Cr.P.C. directing that the sentences in both the cases shall run concurrently. He placed reliance on PLD 1991 Supreme Court 1145 and 1987 PCr.LJ 2169 and unreported judgment dated 18‑9‑2001 of this Court in the case of "Shamshad Hussain alias Shamla v. The State" (Criminal Appeal No.75 of 2000). Learned counsel for the appellant has also prayed for the reduction of fine.

3. We have considered the arguments and find ourselves in agreement with the learned counsel for the appellant: The sentences passed in both the cases are ordered to run concurrently. The sentence of fine is also reduced from Rs.50,000 to Rs.2500 in each case. The appellant shall be, released subject to deposit of fine. In case of default in the payment of fine he shall suffer further imprisonment for a period of one year from the date of this order. S.M.A.H./G‑186/L Order accordingly.