ORDER Criminal Miscellaneous No.458-M of 2010 Through this C.M., Imran Khan/ petitioner seeks suspension of sentence awarded to him by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge Rawalpindi Camp at Murree vide his judgment dated 12-3-2010 in case F.I.R. No. 518 dated 27-12-2006 under section 9-C C.N.S.A. 1997 registered at Police Station Murree District Rawalpindi for recovery of seven 'toras' containing 272 packets of Charas weighing 1-Kg each from the diggy of Honda car bearing Registration No. RLC/5839 in which the petitioner was sitting on the front seat while the car was driven by co-accused Asad Ullah. On further search of the vehicle three packets of opium weighing 1-Kg each were also recovered from beneath the driving seat.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been convicted under section 9-C of Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 and sentenced to death with fine of Rs.5,00,000 (Rupees five lac). In default thereof to further undergo' S.I. For 6 months. It is contended that the sentence awarded to the petitioner is against law and facts of the case. Prosecution evidence is full of discrepancies and cannot be believed. Neither Judicial Magistrate nor S.H.O. Police Station Murree have been produced before the trial Court to substantiate that sample was separated from 262 packets and sent to the office of Chemical Examiner in their presence. There is nothing on the record as to who took the second sample, what was the quantity of charas taken from each packet and who took the sample parcels to the office of Chemical Examiner. There is no likelihood of fixation of main appeal for hearing in the near future. It is, therefore, prayed that the sentence awarded to the petitioner may be suspended and he be released on bail.
3. On the other hand, learned D.P.-G. For the State vehemently opposed the C.M. And contended that arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner come within the ambit of deeper appreciation of evidence which is not permissible under the law.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. As stated earlier, the petitioner in this case has been sentenced to death and fine of Rs.5.00,000 (Rupees five lac). In default to further undergo' S.I for six months which is not a short sentence.
Grounds agitated before us by the learned counsel for the petitioner for suspension of sentence and admitting the petitioner to bail relate to deeper appreciation of evidence which cannot be made at this bail stage. This being so, while relying upon 'Farhat Azeem v. Waheed Rasul and others' PLD 2000 SC 18 and 'Allah Ditta Khan v. The State PLD 2002 SC 845, we dismiss this petition.