1. ' DR. RANA MUHAMMAD SHAMIM, J.--- This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment, dated 6-8-2007 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, C.N.S. Hyderabad in Special Case No,53 of 2006 arising out of Crime No,42 of 2006 of Policed Station Hali Road, Hyderabad, whereby the appellant was convicted under section 9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances, 1997 and sentenced to suffer R.I. For ten years add to pay fine of Rs,1,00,000 (Rupees one lac). In case of default in payment of fine, the appellant was to suffer S.I. For six months more.
2. He was however, granted benefit under section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
3. ' The facts of the prosecution case as narrated in the F.I.R., lodged by complainant S.-I.P. Arshad Ali that on 3-7-2006 at 2245 hours he along with his subordinate staff left police station for patrolling in official vehicle at about 2030 hours under Roznamcha Entry No,28. During patrolling, they reached at Maji Hospital Chowk where they received spy information that one person is selling Charas near Barkat Bhai Town. The complainant party immediately rushed towards pointed place at 2130 hours where they saw the said person who on seeing police party tried to slip away towards Barkat Bhai Town, but he was apprehended by A.S.-I. Fazal Dad at the distance of 20/25 paces. On enquiry, he disclosed his name Ikhtiar alias Dado son of Abdul Rasheed. His personal search was conducted in presence of official Mashirs namely A.S.-I. Fazal Dad and P.C. Amanullah to which complainant party secured one white colour plastic Theli from his right hand which was checked and found four strips of Charas and one small piece of Charas in it and from the front pocket of his shirt they also recovered five notes of Rs,10, total Rs,50. The recovered Charas was weighed through electric weighing scale which becomes 1060 grams, out of which ten grams were separated for Chemical Examiner and rest of the Charas was sealed separately. On inquiry, accused further disclosed that he was standing in order to sell the Charas. ' Thereafter accused and property were brought at police station and registered the present case.
4. ' After usual investigation, accused was challaned before the competent Court of law.
5. ' The charge under section 9(c) of C.N.S. Act, 1997 was framed against the appellant, but he pleaded not guilty. In support of the case, the prosecution examined Investigating Officer S.-I.P.
6. Fazal Hussain, complainant Arshad Ali and Mashir A.S.-I. Fazal Dad, thereafter learned D.D.A. Closed the side of prosecution.
7. ' The appellant in his statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. Denied all the allegations of the prosecution. In his further statement, he stated that he is innocent.
8. ' After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant, as mentioned above, under the impugned judgment, hence the present appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant does not press this appeal and prays that in pursuance of judgments of this Court and High Courts of other Provinces, the sentence awarded to the appellant be reduced to already undergone and the fine may also be remitted as only 1060 grams Charas was recovered from him and he is unable to pay the fine. He submits that the appellant is a first offender, young man and having family responsibilities. He further submits that due to his detention in prison he and his family have mentally and financially crippled. He has further submitted that the appellant has learnt lesson and regrets as he committed the offence in a mitigating circumstances. He has shown remorse and penitence. Consequently, during his serving sentence he has improved lot and realized his mistakes by committing such offence. He undertakes not to repeat such an offence in future. He wants to reform rehabilitate himself as a respectable citizen. He further submits that ends of justice have been served. While submitting so he relies the cases reported in 1989 PCr.LJ 840, PLD 1977 Kar. 1049, 1993 PCr.LJ 490, 1991 PCr.LJ 886 and 1993- MLD 1823 and retreat's that in above decided cases the sentences of the convicts in appeal reduced in circumstances.
9. ' The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State raised no objection and states that the sentence be reduced to already undergone and the fine be also remitted.
10. ' We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned State Counsel and perused the record and the case-law.
11. Perusal of record shows that the appellant is in custody since his arrest on 3-7-2006 and the appellant is a first offender and shown his remorse and penitence during the period of prison as convict and he has served out substantive sentence of more than two years, the appellant deserves leniency.
12. ' In view of the above, we dismiss this appeal as not pressed and conviction is maintained.
13. However, the substantive sentence awarded to him is reduced from 10 years' R.I. To 2 years' R.I. And also reduced the fine from Rs,1,00,000 to Rs,15,000 (Rupees fifteen thousand) and in default in payment of fine, he has to further undergo R.I. For two months instead of six months. He is also entitled for the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Extended to him by the learned trial Court. He would also be entitled of remissions, if any, as per prison rules so announced/granted by the Government.