' MIAN SHAKLRULLAH JAN, J.---The appellant after having been found guilty under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act") for the recovery of 10 kgs. Charas from his possession was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment and with a fine of Rs, 200,000 or in default thereof to further undergo 6 months' S.I. The appeal of the appellant was also dismissed by the High Court, he still felt aggrieved filed the instant appeal with the leave of the Court.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the prosecution has failed to produce the credible evidence against the appellant and the case against him has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. On the other hand learned Deputy Prosecutor-General has opposed the contention of the appellant's counsel and contended that the recovery has been made from his possession and sufficient evidence has been produced by the prosecution to bring home guilt to the appellant and he was rightly convicted and sentenced. However, at the end' learned counsel for the appellant has prayed in the alternative by contending that if the conviction is maintained then his sentence may be reduced to the one already undergone by stating that the appellant is of advance age of 80/85 years. The learned Deputy Prosecutor-General has not opposed the last prayer of the appellant's counsel.
3. It is also an admitted fact that the appellant has not been given the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. And no reason has been assigned for not granting such a relief which under the law he is entitled. The trial Court as well as the appellate Court are directed to be careful in future and the benefit under section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Be considered for the convicts at the time of passing sentence of imprisonment.
4. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the stand taken by the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Deputy Prosecutor-General, the age of the appellant which is more than 80 years, and the fact that he remained in jail for about 4/5 years, we while maintaining the conviction of the appellant his sentence is reduced to the one already undergone.
Similarly, the sentence of fine imposed upon the appellant is also reduced from Rs, 200,000 to Rs, 100,000 or in default thereof to further undergo 3 months' S.I. The appeal is partly allowed in the above terms.
Sentence reduced.