' MUHAMMAD ALAM KHAN, J.---This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order of Mr. Muhammad Sabir, Additional Sessions Judge-III, Nowshera dated 7-5-2008 whereby appellant Gul Daraz son of Sarfraz Khan resident of Zando Banda, Tehsil and District Nowshera involved in case F.I.R. No,524 dated 31-8-2006 under section 9 Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, Police Station Rislapur, was convicted under section 9(a) Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and sentenced to one year R.I. And to pay a fine of Rs,5000 or in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was however, extended to him.
2. Mr. Rehan Saeed, Advocate learned counsel representing the appellant at the outset did not opt to contest the appeal on merits and in this connection requested for reduction of the sentence.
3. Mr. Ikramullah Khan, learned Additional Advocate-General appearing for the State opposed the assertion of the learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that the appellant has already been dealt with leniently by the learned trial Court and in view of the heinous nature of the offence, the appellant is not entitled to the reduction of the sentence.
4. We have given our anxious consideration to the facts of the case and have gone through the, record of the case and have found that: that the appellant a first offender and is neither a drug- trafficker nor previously involved in such like cases. Furthermore, the appellant is young student of about eighteen years, thus the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant needs due consideration.
5. Furthermore, as held earlier nothing is available on record to prove that the appellant is a drug trafficker or involved in such like activities previously Thus, his case can be considered leniently and he could be granted reduction in the quantum of sentence as held in the case of "Nazar Muhammad v. The State" reported in 1986 PCr.LJ 2065.
6. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed and while maintaining the conviction of the appellant his sentence is reduced from one year R.I., to the period already undergone and the sentence of the amounting to Rs,5000 is maintained, in default of payment of fine he will have to undergo S.I. For three months. The benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Already extended to the convict-appellant shall remain intact.
' The above are the reasons for our short order of even date.