2006 PLP 2756 (YLR)

ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.

Muhammad Iqbal appellant was convicted for an offence under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 vide judgment dated 12-4-2003 handed down by the learned Judge, Special Court (Control of Narcotic Substances), Gujranwala and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years and a fine of Rs.50,000 or in default of payment thereof to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. The benefit under section 382-B, Cr.P.C. was extended to the appellant. The appellant has challenged his conviction and sentence before this Court through the present appeal.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of this case with their assistance. At the outset the learned counsel for the appellant has stated that he does not challenge the appellant's conviction recorded by the learned trial Court but he only requests for reduction of the appellant's sentence. As against that the learned counsel for the State has maintained that as long as the appellant's conviction is 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.

3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record we have observed that according to the prosecution the appellant had been apprehended red-handed while in possession of two kilograms of Charas and a report had been received from the Chemical Examiner in the positive. The said factum of recovery had been proved before the learned trial Court, by Muhammad Arshad, F.C. (P.W.2) and Amir Hussain Sindhu, S.-I./S.H.O. (P.W.S) who had made consistent statements. The said recovery witnesses were public servants and apparently there was no background of ill-will or bitterness between such public servants and the appellant so as to prompt the former to falsely implicate the latter in a case of this nature. The learned trial Court had felt impressed by independence and consistency of the recovery witnesses and we have found no reason to disagree with such appreciation of the evidence on the part of the learned trial Court. In these circumstances we have found the learned counsel for the appellant to be quite justified in not challenging the appellant's conviction recorded by the learned trial Court.

4. As regards the question of sentence we have noticed that the appellant had no history of involvement in offences pertaining to narcotics prior to registration of the present case. The appellant was petty an employee in a hotel and he does not appear to be financially comfortable in life which fact is evident from filing of this appeal from the jail rather than through a private counsel. Eyen before the learned trial Court the appellant could not afford a private counsel. It shows that the appellant is not a dealer of narcotics A and he could well be only a pusher or a carrier. The appellant has already spent about four years in jail in connection with this case. Keeping all these considerations in mind and in view of these special circumstances of this case we have felt persuaded to suitably reduce the appellant's sentence.

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 his sentence of imprisonment which is reduced to that already undergone by him. The sentence passed by the learned trial Court regarding payment of fine by the appellant is set aside. He shall be released from the jail forthwith if not required in any other case. H.B.T./M-390/L????????? ??????????? Sentence reduced.