1. ' GHULAM DASTAGIR A. SHAHANI, J.--- This criminal jail appeal has been filed by the appellant/accused Jaffar son of Johari Sheffa against the conviction awarded by Special Court-II (Control of Narcotic Substances), Karachi vide judgment, dated 8-8-2007 in Crime No,65 of 2006 registered at Custom Police Station under sections 6/9-B of C.N.S. Act, 1997, whereby the appellant was awarded sentence of R.I. For 2-1/2 years plus fine of Rs .40,000 and in default to undergo 2-1/2 months with benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
2. ' The brief facts of the case are that on 27-12-2006 at 0930 hours at International Departure Loung, Jinnah International Airport, Karachi the Customs officials apprehended the accused and taken him to Jinnah Hospital where 66 capsules weighing 750 grams of heroin powder taken out from his stomach. On the basis of said recovery, instance case was registered against appellant/accused and he was taken in custody. However, on the date of framing of charge, the appellant/accused pleaded his guilt. Trial Court on the basis of admission coupled with other material convicted the appellant by awarding him R.I. For 2-1/2 years plus fine of Rs,40,000 and in case of non-payment the appellant will undergo for 2-1/2 months more and benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was also extended to the accused: ' Heard appellant presenting in custody, who does not challenge his conviction but only requests reduction in sentence and fine.
3. ' On the other hand Mr. Rizwan Ahmed Siddiqui learned D.A.-G. Opposes the aforesaid appeal on the ground that lesser punishment has already been awarded to the appellant, as such he is not entitled for more concession in view of the nature of the offence.
4. ' Heard appellant/accused as well as learned D.A.-G. And perused the material available on record.
5. From record it appears that appellant/ accused pleaded his guilt whereby he states that he was carrying 750 grams of heroin powder and he has not been pressurized by anyone to plead such guilt. Though accused/appellant was informed by the trial Court that he would be convicted and sentenced upto 7 years, on which the appellant/accused prayed for taking lenient view and marching while awarding sentence to him. However, on the basis of admission of the appellant/accused, a lesser punishment was -awarded to him, by taking a lenient view, therefore, appellant does not deserve more concession. It is settled principle of law that each and every case is to be decided on its own merits. However, in the present case, the appellant pleaded for mercy stating that this was his first offence and his family members including old mother and kids depend upon him. Although there is nothing on record which can lend support to the said contention but at the same time it appears that appellant has regretted his involvement in the offence and has expressed remorse. However, learned D.A.-G. Agrees that the appellant is entitled to the concession in view of his pleading guilt to the charge.
6. We are consequently, while taking into consideration the cases of Unchenna Ibeneme v. The State 1992 M LD 1823, Dominguez Rodriguez Narciso v. The State 2000 M LD 218 and John Chibuzo v. The State 2000 M LD 235 respectively are of the view that judgment passed by the trial Court is legal, proper and in accordance to law. No illegality, infirmity whatsoever, pointed out by the appellant.
7. With the result, this appeal is partially allowed and sentence/conviction awarded R.I. For two and half (2-1/2) years by the trial Court is maintained. So far, fine of Rs,40,000 imposed upon him is reduced from Rs,40,000 to Rs,10,000 and in case of default, the accused will further undergo R.I. For 15 days. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Already awarded to the accused will remain operative and his detention period be deducted from his sentence as ordered by the trial Court. With the result, this appeal is partially allowed and is disposed of, in the above terms.