' TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.---Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment dated 20-2-2002 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore, whereby Criminal Appeal bearing No,201 of 1999 filed by the petitioner was dismissed giving him the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
2. Facts briefly stated are that F.I.R. No,122, dated 13-6-1997 was got recorded under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, at the instance of Manzoor Hussain, S.-I. At Police Station Waan Bachran of District Mianwali. After investigation the challan was submitted before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Mianwali. Evidence was recorded and the learned trial Judge after thrashing the entire evidence brought on record, convicted the petitioner vide his judgment dated 4-2-1999 sentencing him to 14 years R.I. With a fine of. Rs,1,00,000 or in default of payment of the said fine to undergo further R.I. For two years.
3. The petitioner filed an appeal bearing Criminal Appeal No,201 of 1999 which has been dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore. High Court, Lahore vide judgment dated 20-2-2002. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has only argued that the learned trial Court while convicting the petitioner has not rendered the judgment in accordance with the provisions of section 367(2), Cr.P.C. And the non-mentioning of the section has rendered the whole exercise illegal and void.
5. We have considered the contention of the learned counsel and have gone through the documents appended with this petition. It must be mentioned at the very outset that the learned counsel for the petitioner even before the High Court too, did not argue the case on merits and took up only the point of non-mentioning of section in the judgment under which the petitioner was convicted. This is purely a technical objection as the petitioner was aware at the time of trial that charge under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 had been framed against him. This omission of non-mentioning of the section in the judgment has not at all prejudiced the case of the petitioner.
6. This being the position, we do not find any justification to interfere with the impugned judgment.
This petition is, therefore, dismissed. .