' M.A. SHAHID SIDDIQUI, J.---Naseer Ahmad appellant has been convicted under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 by a learned Additional Sessions Judge at Jhang in case F.I.R. No,120, dated 19-6-2002 Police Station 18 Hazari District Jhang and sentenced to R.I. For 14 years and a fine of Rs,25,000 or in default of payment thereof to undergo further S.I. For six months with benefit of section 382-B, Cr. P. C.
2. The prosecution case was that on 19-6-2002 Muhammad Ausaf Safdar, Inspector (P.W.5) accompanied by Muhammad Younas, A.S.-I., and Rajab Ali, A.S.-I., was on patrol duty at Adda Kaurrianwala. He received a secret information that Naseer Ahmad appellant was selling narcotics in his house situated in Mauza Dhoyen Muhammad. Muhammad Manzoor, 572-C was sent in the garb of a purchaser. He was given Rs,3000 for this purpose. After a short-while Muhammad Manzoor returned with 1/2 kilogram Charas and one Chatank of opium, which he had purchased from Naseer Ahmad appellant-convict. Muhammad Ausaf Safdar, Inspector raised the house of the accused who was found sitting in his house on a cot. Two polythene bags containing two kilograms of Charas and 3/4 Kilogram of opium besides a scale and few weights were found lying on the cot. Sale proceeds amounting to Rs,5200 were also recovered from the right side pocket of the shirt of the accused. Out of the recovered substances, two samples of 10 grams each from each substance were separated and made into sealed parcels for onward transmission to the Chemical Examiner. Muhammad Ausaf Safdar, Inspector sent his report (Exh.P.A.) to the S.H.O.
Which formed basis of F.I.R. (Exh.P.A./1), drawn at the Police Station by Ghulam Akbar, Moharror/Head Constable (P.W.2). After completion of investigation the accused stood challaned.
3. At the commencement of the trial the appellant did not plead guilty to the charge and claimed trial. The prosecution produced as many as five witnesses and ,tendered in evidence report of Chemical Examiner (Exh.P.G.) in order to bring home the charge against the accused. The recovery of the narcotic substances has been testified by Rajab Ali, A.S.-I. (P.W.3), Muhammad Younas, A.S.-I.
(P.W.4) and Muhammad Ausaf Safdar, Inspector (P.W.5). Muhammad Iqbal, Constable (P.W:1) deposed about the transaction of sealed parcels said to contain Charas and opium to the Office of the Chemical Examiner. Ghulam Akbar Moharror/HC (P.W.2) stated about the registration of formal F.I.R. (Exh.PA/1). He also deposed about the retention of the sealed parcel and its transaction to the Office of the Chemical Examiner.
4. The prosecutor in his closing statement tendered the report of Chemical Examiner (Exh.P.G.).
5. The accused in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. Denied the allegation. He produced Muhammad Younas, Naib Moharror (D.W.1) in order to prove the entries in the Roznamcha of the Police Station (Exh. D. A .), (Exh. D. B.), (Exh.D.C), (Exh.D.D.) and (Exh.D.E.) showing departure of Rajab Ali, A.S.-I., from the Police Station on 15-6-2002 and that of Muhammad Younas and Muhammad Hayat on 19-6-2002. The learned trial Court after appraisal of the evidence on the record and material brought on the record held the appellant guilty to the charge under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and sentenced to 14 years' R.I. And a fine of Rs,25,000.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant, at the very outset, opted not to challenge the conviction.
He simply prayed for the reduction in the sentence on the ground that there is nothing on the record to show previous conviction of the appellant in any case of similar nature. Admittedly the appellants have been in custody since 19-6-2002. The offence entails punishment upto 14 years. In view of the quantity allegedly recovered from the possession of the appellant the proviso to section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 is not attracted.
7. In the circumstances of the case, while taking a lenient view, we feel inclined to reduce the sentence from 14 years' rigorous imprisomnent to five years' rigorous imprisonment. The appellant shall, however, pay the fine of Rs,25,000 as ordered by the learned trial Court.
' With this modification in the sentences, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
Sentence reduced.