1. ' BASHIR A. MUJAHID, J.---Karim Dad Khan, appellant after having been tried by the learned Sessions Judge/Judge Special Court CNSA, 1997, Mianwali in case F.I.R. No,120/2000, dated 28-3- 2000 under section 9(c) of CNSA, 1997 registered at P.S. Saddar, Mianwali, under section 9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 was convicted as such and sentenced to death. He was also sentenced to pay Rs,one million, in default whereof to undergo five years R.I.
2. ' The brief facts of the prosecution case are that Muhammad Sher, S.-I. Along with other police officials was on patrol duty on 29-3-2000 when he received a spy information that the appellant is busy in selling narcotics. On which, raiding party was constituted and raid was conducted at 7-30 p.m. And the appellant was apprehended, who was holding a shopper of black colour in his hand containing heroin weighing 1 Kg. 50 grams which was recovered and was taken into possession through memo. Exh.P.B. Along with scale, small tea spoon and weights. On his complaint Exh.P.A./1, the F.I.R. Was registered. After completion of investigation challan against the appellant was submitted.
3. ' The trial Court framed the charge which was denied by the appellant and he claimed trial.
4. ' During the trial the prosecution examined Mehr Khan, HC as P.W.1, who recorded the formal F.I.R.
5. Exh.P.A. And kept the sealed parcels containing samples of heroin and thereafter on 30-3-2000 sent the sample parcels to the office of Chemical Examiner. Ghulam Muhammad, FC P.W.2 delivered the sealed parcel containing heroin at the office of Chemical Examiner. Zaffar Iqbal, S.-I.
6. P.W.3 was member of the raiding party and attested the recovered memo. Exh.P.B. Whereby heroin was taken into possession. Muhammad Sher Khan, S.-I. P.W.4 was head of the raiding party, investigated the case and submitted the challan.
7. ' The prosecution evidence was closed by tendering in evidence report of Chemical Examiner Exh.P.O.
8. ' The statement of the accused/ appellant was recorded under section .342, Cr.P.C. He denied the allegations and claimed his innocence and false involvement. In reply to question No,4 as to why this case against you and why the P. Ws. Have deposed against you, he stated as under:--- ' "Abdur Rehman my neighbour is related to Muhammad. Sher S.-I. Khursheed Khan, Ex-Member, District Council has very close relations with said Abdur Rehman. I and Khursheed Khan have a dispute of turbine. Due to this grudge Khursheed Khan and Abdur Rehman in connivance with Muhammad Sher S.-I. Involved me in this false case. Few days before this occurrence, Muhammad Sher S.-I. Also involved me in two narcotics cases on the basis of source report. Thereafter, Muhammad Sher S.-I. Also got me involved in a narcotic case through Zaffar Iqbal S.-I. On the basis of source report. Prior to that a case F.I.R. No,266/98 was registered against me falsely showing police combat, and then was involved in so many narcotics cases falsely on the basis of source report. The police officials have deposed against me at the instance of Muhammad Sher S.-I. Being his subordinates. In fact I am innocent.
9. ' The trial culminated into conviction and sentence of the appellant as mentioned above. Hence this appeal.
10. ' Learned counsel for the appellant at the very outset has argued that he would not press the appeal/conviction provided the sentence is reduced adequately as the quantity recovered was only 1050 grams which is slightly over one Kilogram and it has been exaggerated by the police to make the case of the appellant more heinous. He has placed reliance on PLD 2002 SC 321 and 2003 PCr.LJ 1108 for reduction in sentence.
11. ' The prayer being genuine has not ' been opposed by learned Additional Advocate-General and learned counsel for the State.
12. ' Heard. Record perused.
13. ' The appellant was apprehended at the spot and from his personal search heroin was recovered.
14. He is also previously involved in many other cases of similar nature and the police officials have no enmity for false implication by planting huge quantity of narcotic, therefore, learned counsel for the appellant is justified in not challenging the conviction.
15. ' As far as sentence is concerned, the quantity is slightly over one Kilogram which seems to have been shown just to bring the case under section 9(c) CNSA otherwise upto the quantity of one Kilogram the case falls under section 9(b) CNSA for which the maximum sentence is seven years, therefore, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, while maintaining the conviction, we reduce the sentence to 10 years' R.I. And fine to Rs,1,00,000 in default of payment of fine to undergo six months' R.I. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Shall also be available to the appellant. With this modification the appeal is dismissed.
16. Sentence reduced.