2005 PLP 2346 (YLR)

Appellant who was proceeded against in the Court of learned Judge Special Court on the charge of having been found in possession of 2 K.Gs. of Charas in a case registered against him under section 9 C.N.S. Act vide F.I.R. No.635 dated 13-9-2001 Police Station, Nowshera Cantt. and on its proof was convicted and sentenced to 7 years R.I. with a fine of Rs.1,00,000 or in default to undergo 6 months' S.I. vide judgment dated 23-12-2004, preferred the instant appeal to assail his conviction and sentence.

2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant by highlighting various minor and insignificant discrepancies tried to make out a case for acquittal of the appellant but when sensed that his arguments in this behalf are not expected to deliver goods he straightaway asked for reduction in sentence by submitting that since the magnitude of sentence is to be in proportion to the magnitude of the crime the sentence of 7 years with a fine of Rs.1,00,000 would be too harsh as punishment for possessing 2 K.Gs of charas.

3. As against that the learned D.A.-G. appearing on behalf of the State argued that the evidence on record besides being consistent and confidence-inspiring is not suffering from any infirmity as could give rise to any doubt, therefore, he was rightly convicted by the learned trial Court. However, he could not convincingly resist the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant for reduction in sentence.

4. We have gone through the record carefully and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

5. A perusal of the evidence on record would reveal that all the witnesses consistently deposed that the appellant was apprehended on the spot pursuant to a raid and that charas weighing 2016 grams was recovered from a shopping bag held by him in his right hand. The .samples taken from the suspected substance were sent to F.S.L. which were found to have contained charas. When this is the state of evidence, we have no doubt in our mind that the charge against him stands proved beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt. Therefore, we A will not like to interfere with the finding of conviction. But since the quantum of sentence has to be proportionate to the quantum of the substance recovered, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant for reduction in sentence is not without force, therefore, we while maintaining his conviction would reduce the sentence of imprisonment from 7 years' R.I. to 2 years' R.I. and that of fine from Rs.1,00,000 to Rs.10,000 or in default to undergo S.I. for 3 months. With the above modification, this appeal is dismissed. H.B.T./448/P Order accordingly.