' SAID MAROOF KHAN, J.- Through this Criminal Appeal the appellant Naseeb Khan has questioned the judgment and order dated 26-7-2008 of the learned Judge Special Court/Additional Sessions Judge XIII Peshawar whereby he had convicted the appellant for offence under section 9(c)
Control of Narcotic Substances Act and sentenced him to suffer life imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs,10,000 or in default thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one month besides giving him the benefit of section 382-B Cr.P.C.
2. The prosecution case is that on 31-3-2008 at 11-30 a.m. The appellant while transporting a huge quantity of Charas in Motor Car No,5335/SGB was intercepted by the police officials including P.W.1 Riazul Islam S.H.O, and P.W.2 Granullah A.S.H.O. Police Station Yakatoot Peshawar at Ring Road near Dir Colony Chowk Peshawar and search or the Motor Car Charqs "Garda" weighing 10 Kgs. And 800 grams was recovered therefrom. The appellant who was driving the Car at the relevant time was apprehended at the spot and the case was registered against him vide F.I.R. No,233 dated 31-3- 2008 at Police Station Yakatoot Peshawar.
3. After completion of investigation challan was submitted in Court on 13-5-2008. Charge was framed on 27-5-2008 to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the appellant examined three witnesses and abandoned the remaining P.Ws. The appellant when examined under section 342 Cr.P.C, denied the allegation of the prosecution and stated that he was innocent and falsely charged. However, he had neither produced any evidence in defence nor recorded his statement under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. On conclusion of the trial the' learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant vide judgment dated 25-7-2008.
4. On merits the learned counsel for the appellant did nor press the appeal. However, he requested for reduction of sentence stating that the appellant is first offender and that the recovered substance was Charas Garda which in the process of baking would have reduced by 50% and, therefore, in the circumstances of the case the sentence of life imprisonment is too harsh and it is liable to be reduced.
5. The learned counsel representing the State supported the impugned judgment contending that in view of the quantity of recovered Charas the sentence of imprisonment for life is quite appropriate and that no reasonable ground exists for its reduction.
6. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
In case of Hafiz Rashid v. The State Criminal Petition No,137 ;of 2004 decided on 6-1-2005 the Honourable Supreme Court had held as under:- "If one strictly adheres to the contents of section 9(c) C.N.S.A., it provides for punishments ranging from imprisonments extendable to 14 years to imprisonment for life and even death. These punishments are to be adjusted against the recoveries of narcotic substances ranging from over one kilogram up to several maunds. It would highly blown out of proportion if the recovery of over one kilogram and that of several maunds are considered at par and for both, the punishment of either death or imprisonment for life is awarded. The law always contemplates a fair and equitable balance between the crime and the punishment."
7. Keeping in view the nature and quantity of Charas recovered in the instant case and the rule laid down in the above referred judgment of the apex Court we accept the instant appeal to the extent of sentence and covert the imprisonment for life into rigorous imprisonment for 7 years. The sentence of fine shall, however, remain intact.