1. ' DR. RANA MUHAMMAD SHAMIM J.---This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment dated 3-5-2003 passed by learned Special Judge, C.N.S. Hyderabad in Special Case No,150 of 1995 arising out of Crime No,78/1995 of Police Station, Cantt: Hyderabad, whereby the appellant was convicted under section 9(e) of Control of Narcotic Substance Act and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs,one million. In case of default in payment of fine, the appellant was to suffer S.I. For six months more. He was however, granted benefit under section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
2. ' Precisely, the prosecution, story as unfolded in the complaint, lodged by complainant S.I.P.
3. Muhammad Ahmed that on 28-7-1995 at about 5-30 p.m. He along with his sub-ordinate staff left police station for patrolling at about 4-00 p.m. Under Roznamcha entry No,24. During patrolling, they reached at Gul Centre where complainant received spy information that a person in Jeep No,E-0487 Suzuki carrying the heroin is coming from GOR Colony Hyderabad and is going towards Gari Khata via Rani Bagh, Hyderabad. After receiving such information, started checking of the vehicles near under construction State Bank Building, Thandi Sarak, Hyderabad and at about 4-40 p.m. He saw one jeep of red colour which was driven by one person, the jeep was stopped by the complainant and in presence of official mashirs enquired from the accused about his name, who disclosed his name as Shoukat Ali S/o Mumtaz Khan Pathan. The complainant took the personal search of the accused and secured, cash of Rs,500 from the pocket of his shirt; he thereafter took the search of the jeep and secured four packets of heroin powder, which were lying in hidden places under front seats. The property was weighed on the spot and weight of each packet was 1050 grams and the total weight of the heroin powder becomes 4200 grams. 50 grams heroin powder was taken from each packet for sending the same to the chemical examiner. The sample and the remaining property were sealed at the spot. The complainant thereafter prepared the mashirnama of arrest of the accused, recovery and obtained the signatures of the mashirs, he thereafter brought the accused and property at police station where he registered the F.I.R. Against the accused.
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 the recovery inashir SIP Muhammad Shafiq, who has produced the mashirnama of arrest of accused and recovery and complainant Inspector Muhammad Ahmed, thereafter learned D.A. Closed the side of prosecution.
6. ' 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 and the recovery has been foisted upon him by the SHO at the instance of his rival contractor Karim Khan Niazi.
7. ' 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.
8. ' The learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant is continuous in prison since 10-8- 1995 i.e, for the last more than 13 years. He would not challenge conviction in circumstance and requests that the sentence awarded to the appellant be reduced from life A imprisonment to ten years and the fine may also be remitted, as 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 leson 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 rehabilitate by leading a good life as a respectable citizen. He further submits, that no purpose would be served to keep him in prison to serve out the remaining sentence, on the contrary it will be burdened on government exchequer.
9. ' He referred cases reported i.e, 1989 PCr.LJ 840, PLD 1977 Kar. 1049, 1993 PCr.LJ 490 1991 PCr.LJ 886 and 1993 M LD 1823 and contends that in the said cases the sentence of the convicts in appeal was reduced in circumstances keeping in view the quantity of recovered heroin from their possession.
10. 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, as the 4200 grams 'gross heroin B powder was recovered from him. The exact percentage of morphine could not be determined in laboratory test by the chemical examiner.
11. ' We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned State counsel and perused the record and the case law.
12. Perusal of record shows that the appellant is in custody since 10-8-1995 and the appellant is a first offender and shown his remorse and penitence during the period of prison as U.T.P. And convict.
13. Since he has served out substantive sentence of more than thirteen years, the appellant deserves leniency.
14. ' In view of the above, we dismiss this appeal as not pressed and conviction is maintained.
15. However, the substantive sentence awarded to him is reduced from life imprisonment to twelve years R.I. And also reduce the fine from Rs,one million to Rs, 100,000 (rupees one lac) and in default in payment of fine, he has to further undergo R.I. For one year. He is also entitled for the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Extended to him by the learned trial court. He is also entitled for benefit of remissions, if any, as per Prisons Rules, announced/granted by the Government.
16. Sentence reduced.