' M. BILAL KHAN, J.---Mst. Asifa Bibi wife of Muhammad Bashir appellant was convicted under section 9(c) of C.N.S.A. 1997 vide judgment, dated 2-6-2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Silakot and was sentenced to 5 years' R.I. And a fine of Rs.100,000 in default of payment whereof she was further ordered to undergo R.I. For 6 months. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was also awarded to Mst. Asifa Bibi appellant. She has challenged her conviction and sentence before this Court through the present appeal.
2. The allegation against the appellant is that on 26-7-2002 about 10-00 a.m. She had been apprehended by a raiding police party and heroin weighing 1007 grams was recovered from her possession and the whole quantity was sent to Chemical Examiner for chemical analysis.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the recovered quantity of heroin weighing 1007 grams also includes the weight of the shopper bag which if deducted the actual quantity of heroin comes to about 987 grams due to which the case of the appellant comes out of the mischief of section 9(c) and falls within the ambit of section 9(b) of C.N.S.A. Which entails lesser punishment. He further argued that the appellant is a lady and is not a previous convict and moreover she is behind the bars since 2-6-2003. In the given facts and circumstances, while not challenging the conviction the learned counsel submitted that the sentence was very harsh and needed to be drastically reduced.
4. We have heard the learned counsel assiduously and have gone through the record. It is borne out from the evidence of Rana Muhammad Anwar S.-I. (P.W.1) that the contents of the heroin were weighed along with shopper bag while the weight of the shopper bag was about 15 to 20 grams and by deducting the same the heroin recovered from the appellant falls short of 1000 grams and as such the case would, fall within the purview of section 9(b) of C.N.S.A. The appellant is a woman and is not a previous convict. There is no previous history of her involvement in a drug case. We have minutely gone through the evidence available on the record and have come to the conclusion that the conviction and sentence had been rightly recorded against the appellant in that the prosecution had comprehensively proved the charge against the appellant. We have not been able to observe any non-reading or misreading of evidence. No enmity existed between the appellant and the complainant or the other P.Ws. Who appeared in the case. In this scenario the learned counsel for the appellant did not seriously challenge the conviction of the appellant and prayed for a lesser sentence. The learned counsel for the State argued that as long as the conviction of the appellant was maintained he would have no objection regarding the quantum of sentence which according to him squarely falls within the jurisdiction of this Court.
5. After having considered the case from all angles and keeping in view the facts that the appellant is a woman and is not a previous convict we are of the view that the conviction should have been recorded under section 9(b) of C.N.S.A. Accordingly we convert the conviction of the appellant under section 9(b) of C.N.S.A. And reduce her sentence to 3 years' R.I. With benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Similarly the amount of fine of Rs.1,00,000 is reduced to Rs.50,000 in default of payment whereof the appellant shall suffer S.-I. For three months.
' With the above modification in the conviction and sentence the appeal is dismissed.