' ALI NAWAZ CHOWHAN, J.--Farzand Ali appellant was convicted under sections 6/9 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore vide judgment, dated 16-11-2002 in case F.I.R. No,101, dated 29-6-2001 registered at Police Station Akbari Gate, Lahore and sentenced to five years' R.I. With a fine of Rs,20,000 in default whereof to further undergo one year's Si. He was given the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
2. Briefly the prosecution case is that. On 29-6-2001 Abdullah Ali Yousaf A.S-I. C .I.A, City Kotwali along with other police officials apprehended Farzand Ali appellant and on his personal search 2400 grams opium was recovered out of which 50 grams was separated for chemical analysis.
3. The prosecution to prove its case examined as many as six witnesses. Amanat Ali 8347/HC P.W.1 deposed about the safe custody of the parcels said to contain opium in the Malkhana of the police station. Muhammad Irfan Zaib S-I. P.W.2 drafted the formal F.I.R. Exh.P.B./1 on the basis of complaint Exh.P.B. Muhammad Islam constable P.W.3 transmitted the sealed parcels said, to contain opium to the office of Chemical Examiner, Lahore. Muhammad Younas 6183/C P.W.4 is the witness of recovery memo. Exh.P.A. Abdul Ghani S-I. P.W.5 investigated the case. The prosecution after tendering in evidence report of Chemical Examiner Exh.P.D. Closed its case. The statement of accused was recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. He denied all the allegations and recovery of opium. The accused appeared as his own witness under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. In disproof of the allegations against him.
4. The basic objection in this case is regarding seizure having been made by an A.S-I. Which is an irregularity under the provisions of section 21 of the C.N.S.A.
1997. It is further stated that besides the police party who conducted the raid the appellant also suffered the rigours of trial. There is nothing to cogently suggest that he is not a first offender. He has also suffered a part of the sentence and is still in jail since the day he was taken into custody on 16-11-2002 at the time of announcement of the judgment. He has not been able to apply for suspension of sentence and this may be in view of his abject poverty. After the appraisement of the evidence and keeping in view the circumstances we feel that whereas the prosecution has been able to establish its case as no mala fides have been alleged but we further feel that the safer A course in this case would be in reducing the sentence from five years to three years' R.I. While we also reduce the sentence of fine from Rs,20,000 to Rs,10,000 and in lieu thereof two months' S.I. He is also given the benefit under section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Disposed of accordingly.
Sentence reduced.