' FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.--- A criminal case F.I.R. No,145 of 2004 dated 4-12-2004 under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") was registered against the petitioner at Police Station Hub, District Lasbella with the allegation that he was found carrying a. Sack containing 36 Sandles containing heroin powder weighing 9 kilograms packed in plastic and cloth packets, each containing 250 grams. The Special Judge (C.N.S.) Lasbella at Hub convicted him under section 9(c) of the Act and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs,50,000 or to further undergo S.I. For six months in case of default of payment of fine, vide judgment, dated 5-9-2005. However, the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was extended in his favour. The High Court of Balochistan, Quetta dismissed his Criminal Appeal No,276 of 2006. Hence, this petition for leave to appeal.
2. The learned counsel submitted that although the case against the petitioner was proved to the hilt but he could not have been sentenced to life imprisonment in view of proviso to section 9 of the Act as the quantity of heroin did not exceed 10 kilograms.
3. On the other hand, the learned Additional Advocate-General, Balochistan, submitted that in terms of clause (c) of section 9 of the Act, the quantity of heroin exceeded one kilogram. Therefore, the petitioner was rightly sentenced to life imprisonment to which no exception could be taken.
4. We have heard the learned counsel as well as the learned Law Officer at length and have also perused the record.
5. We fail to understand as to how the proviso to section 9 is attracted in the present case which provides for the sentence of imprisonment for life, as the minimum one, where the quantity of narcotics exceeds ten kilograms. Clause (c) of section 9 of the Act clearly postulates that in an appropriate case the sentence of death or imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term extended to 14 years can be legally awarded where quantity of narcotics exceeds one kilogram. In this case, the trial Court exercised its discretion properly in awarding the sentence of imprisonment for life in view of recovery of 9 kilograms heroin. Ordinarily, we need not interfere with the legal sentence awarded by the Court of competent jurisdiction. Reliance can be safely placed on the case of Brig. (R) F.B. Ali v. The State PLD 1975 SC 506. We do not find any error of law or fact in the impugned judgment so as to warrant interference by this Court. This is not a fit case for grant of leave to appeal.
6. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused accordingly.