' MIAN MUHAMMAD NAJUM- UZ-ZAMAN, J.-Appellant was tried by Sessions Judge, Khushab in case F.I.R. No,241 of 2005 for the offence under section 9(b) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 registered at Police Station Jauharabad, who vide judgment dated 19-6-2006 convicted the appellant under section 9(b) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and sentenced him to two years' R.I. And to pay fine of Rs,50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) or in default whereof to further undergo three months' S.-I. Appellant was also given the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment, the appellant filed the instant appeal.
2. In brief the case of the prosecution as set down in the F.I.R. Is that on 30-5-2005 Muhammad Mumtaz (appellant) was apprehended by Muhammad Manzoor, S.-I. In the area of Block No,5, Jauharabad and on his personal search 110 gram Char as was recovered, out of which 10 grants Charas was separated for chemical analysis. Thereafter upon the complaint of Muhammad Manzoor, S.-I. (P.W.7) the instant case was registered.
3. After complying with the legal formalities, Investigating Officer submitted challan before the trial Court where prosecution produced seven witnesses to prove the charge against the appellant including Munir Ahmed Constable P.W.6 and Muhammad Manzoor, S.-I. P.W.7 being recovery witnesses, of the case.
' Learned trial Court also examined appellant under section 342, Cr.P.C. Who while denying the charges pleaded his innocence.
' Appellant did not make any statement under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. Not produced any evidence in his defence.
' Learned trial Court after appraisal of evidence vide judgment dated 19-6-2006 convicted and sentenced the appellant as narrated earlier. Hence, this appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant in support of this appeal submits that appellant has been falsely involved in this case; that the evidence relied upon by the prosecution is not worth reliance; that appellant is a first offender and learned trial Court while awarding sentence to the appellant has taken a harsh view. Conversely counsel for the State while supporting the impugned judgment vehemently opposed the arguments raised by learned counsel for the appellant.
5. Heard. File perused.
6. Charas 110 grams was recovered from the appellant by Muhammad Manzoor, S.-I. (P.W,7) who is complainant of this case. Recovery proceedings were also witnessed by Munir Ahmed Constable P.W.6. Both these witnesses while supporting the prosecution case deposed before the trial Court and there is nothing on the record to show that these witnesses had any enmity against the appellant to falsely involve him in this case. Evidence of these witnesses inspires confidence, rings true and in the circumstances of this case, we are persuaded to rely upon the same to uphold the conviction.
' As far as quantum of sentence of the appellant is concerned, we have observed that substance recovered from the appellant is only 110 grams Char as. The record of this case is silent with regard to any criminal history of the appellant. We have also observed that appellant has already undergone a quite reasonable period as under-trial prisoner as well as a convict. Appellant is facing the agony of this case since 2005 and in these circumstances we are of the view that reduction of quantum of sentence would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly while dismissing this appeal sentence of imprisonment of the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him and amount of fine is also reduced to Rs,2,500 and in default of payment of fine, the appellant shall further undergo fifteen days S.-I.
Sentence reduced.