' MUHAMMAD MUZAMMAL KHAN, J.---Payand Muhammad appellant was convicted for an offence under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, vide judgment, dated 15-3-2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Judge, Special Court C.N.S.A., 1997, Gujranwala, and was sentenced to 14 years' R.I. Along with a fine of Rs,5,00,000 or in default of payment of fine, he was to undergo R.I. For 2 years. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was also extended to the appellant, who, has challenged his conviction and sentence before this Court through instant appeal.
2. The allegation against the appellant is that on 7-8-2000 at about 3-45 p.m. In the area of Barkat Colony within the jurisdiction of the Police Station Dhullay, Gujranwala the appellant was apprehended on a spy information by the raiding party and on search was found in possession of 2 kilograms of Charas along with Rs,1000 (sale proceeds of the Charas). Ten grams of Charas was separated for chemical analysis and after preparing recovery memo., a formal F.I.R. Was registered. The case was investigated and was sent up for trial before the learned Judge, Special Court C.N.S.A., Gujranwala, where a formal charge was framed against him on 25-11-2000 under section 9(c) Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. Prosecution produced seven witnesses. P. W. I is Iftikhar-ul-Hassan 1865/C, who stated that on 18- 8-2000 while he was posted at Police Station Dhullay Gujranwala, he was handed over a sealed parcel by the Moharrir/HC for its onward transmission to the Chemical Examiner Office, which he delivered there, intact.
' P.W.2 is Muhammad Asghar 1484/HC Police Station Saddar, Gujranwala, who stated that on 7-4- 2000 he was posted at Police Station Dhullay, Gujranwala, as Moharrir/HC, when Muhammad Malik S-I. Delivered him two sealed parcels. He kept them intact in the Malkhana and on 18-8-2000 delivered one of those parcels to Iftikhar-ul-Hassan 1865/C for its onward transmission to the Chemical Examiner Office, Lahore. P.W.3 Nisar Ahmad A.S-I. Stated that he was present in Barkat Colony along with Muhammad Nawaz, Javed Iqbal and Ijaz Ahmed constables for the purpose of Gasht and received a spy information about a person, who was selling drugs and was coming from Kashmir Road. According to this witness, after some time a person came there with a suitcase in his hand, which was opened and on its search two kilograms Charas P.1 and Rs,1000 cash, in shape of ten notes of the value of Rs,100 each P.2/1-10 and one iron trunk P.3 containing 11 pieces of cloth P.4/1-11 were recovered vide recovery memos. Exh.P.B., P.C. And P.D., respectively, in presence of Muhammad Nawaz and Javed Iqbal P.Ws. He further stated that recovery memos. Exh.P.B., P.C.
And P.D. Are in his hand writing and signed by him. He also drafted the complaint Exh.P.E. And signed it. This witness sent the complaint through Ijaz Ahmed constable to police station for formal registration of F.I.R. And after that he delivered all the police papers to Muhammad Malik S-I. For investigation.
4. P.W.4 is Zaka Ullah 847/HC, who deposed that on 7-3-2000 while posted at Police Station Dhullay, he received a complaint sent by Nisar Ahmed A.S-I. (P.W.3) through Ijaz Ahmed constable and on that complaint he recorded formal F.I.R. Exh.P.A. Signed by him. P.W.5 Javed Iqbal 1524/LHC, who stated that on 7-8-2000 at about 3-45 p.m. He along with Nisar Ahmed A.S-I., Ijaz Ahmed and Muhammad Nawaz was present in Barkat Colony. Nisar Ahmed A.S-I. Received a spy information about the drug seller coming from Kashmir Road and after some time a - person came there and on search of suitcase, which was in his hand, two kilograms of Charas P.1 and an amount e' Rs,1000 in cash in the shape of ten notes of the value of Rs,100 each P.2/1-10 and one iron box P.3 containing 11 pieces of cloth P.4/1-11 were recovered vide memo. Exh.F .13., P.C. And P.D. He further stated that two, sealed parcels, one containing the recovered Charas and the other containing sample of 10 grams, separated from the Charas recovered from the appellant were prepared. He also deposed that he along with Muhammad Nawaz signed the recovery memos. P.W.6 is Muhammad Nawaz 858/C who also stated about 'the recovery and manner of recovery as detailed by P.W.5, besides deposing that he also signed these memos. P.W.7 is Muhammad Malik S-I. Police Lines, Gujranwala, who stated that while posted at Police Station Dhullay, he received F.I.R. And complaint of this case through Ijaz Ahmed constable for the purpose of investigation and he recorded the statements of Muhammad Nawaz and Javed Iqbal constables under section 161, Cr.P.C. He further deposed that he prepared site plan PF, on which drawing and notes are by his hand and signed by him. He further certified that investigation of the case was conducted by him, during which the accused told him that he had brought the Charas from Bara and Charas selling is his profession. He also stated that on 19-8-2000 he recorded the statements of Iftikhar Ahmed and Muhammad Asghar P.
Ws. Under section 161, Cr.P.C. And then he challaned the appellant after finding him guilty. Chemical Examiner confirmed that substance recovered from the appellant's possession was contraband narcotic, as it could cause intoxication. The learned trial Judge, at the conclusion of trial sentenced the appellant as noted above, vide his judgment, dated 15-3-2001.
5. At the outset learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that he does not challenge the conviction of the appellant recorded by the learned trial Judge, but he only presses for reduction of his sentence in view of peculiar circumstances of the case, whereunder the appellant has no previous history of involvement in the narcotics cases. He is a young man and is the only earning member of his family. He further submitted that since the narcotics recovered is not of heavy quantity and weighs only two kilograms and as compared to it, the sentence awarded is excessive.
As against it, learned counsel appearing for the State has contended that as long as the conviction of the appellant is not disturbed, he has nothing to say on the question of quantum of sentence, as the same lies within the discretion of the Court.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the record, we observe that the allegation against the appellant regarding possession of the contraband substance has been established before the learned trial Judge through evidence of seven witnesses, who all are public servants, having no enmity or ill will against the appellants, so as to falsely implicate him in a case like the one in hand. The trial Court felt satisfied with the evidence of the said public witnesses and we find no reason to disagree with the trial Court 'on this score. In these circumstances, we find, that the learned counsel for the appellant is justified in not challenging the conviction recorded by the trial Court.
7. We have also consciously adverted to the question of quantum of sentence and find that contraband substance recovered from the appellant's possession was not in huge quantity. He has no antecedents or credentials of a seller of narcotics to his credit as the case in hand appears to be the first case of this kind, ever registered against him with the local police. In view of the reasons given by the learned counsel for the appellant, we feel that as far as sentence of the appellant is concerned he deserves a lenient view.
8. For what has been discussed above, this appeal is dismissed to the extent of appellant's conviction recorded by the learned trial Judge, but the same is partly allowed to the extent of his sentence, which is hereby reduced to 10 years' R.I. Besides which his fine of Rs,5,00,000 is reduced to Rs,3,00,000 and in default of payment of fine he will further undergo S.I. For one year. The benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Has already been extended to the appellant, which will continue. This appeal is accordingly disposed of in these terms.