Altaf Ibrahim Qureshi, J.--Muhammad Sajid was tried in case F.I.R. No, 539, dated 27.11.2009, registered under Section 9(b), of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 at Police Station Kotwali, District Bahawalpur by the learned Sessions Judge, Bahawalpur, for possessing Charas weighing 110 grams. The learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 23.10.2010 convicted the appellant under Section 9(b), CNSA, 1997 and sentenced him for six months R.I. with a fine of Rs,3,000/-, in default whereof to further undergo one month S.I. The appellant was held entitled to the benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
2. Feeling aggrieved of his conviction and sentence, the appellant has approached this Court by way of filing the instant appeal.
3. According to the prosecution story, on 27.11.2009, on having spy information from an informer, Mukhtar Ahmed, Sub-Inspector/I.O, while constituting a raiding party, conducted raid near Derawari gate and caught hold of Muhammad Sajid. Upon his search, 110 grams Charas was recovered' from the right side pocket of his shirt. Cash amounting to Rs,1700/- from the front pocket of his shirt was also recovery by the SI/IO (PW-4). From the recovered substance, 10 grams were separated as sample for chemical examination and the remaining substance was secured into two sealed parcels. The report of the Chemical Examiner Exh.PE subsequently confirmed that the recovered item was in fact narcotic substance. As many as six prosecution witnesses were examined to prove the charge against the appellant. All of them made consistent statements before the learned trial Court, which having been found confidence inspiring, resulted in conviction of the appellant.
4. The appellant was convicted & sentenced by the learned trial Court on 23.10.2010 and was taken into custody on the said date, as he was on bail Vide order dated 11.11.2010, passed on Crl. Misc. No, 01/2010, the appellants conviction & sentence was suspended by this Court and he was released on bail.
5. Keeping in view this situation, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that since the appellant has undergone about two months, of his sentence, therefore, without challenging his conviction on merits, reduction in the quantum of sentence may be, ordered to one already undergone by him. He further submitted that the appellant has no previous history of his involvement in such like cases and; he is the only bread earning person of his family. Learned DPG expressed no objection if the conviction of the appellant is maintained and the quantum of sentence is reduced keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case.
6. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.
7. Although, the prosecution has successfully proved the charge against the appellant by producing incriminating evidence, however, keeping in view the fact that about two months of the sentence has been served-out by the appellant and he being the first offender, we deem it proper that the sentence already undergone by him would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, while maintaining conviction of the appellant under Section 9(b), CNSA, 1997, we reduce his sentence to the period already undergone by him. The sentence of fine is however maintained, which shall be paid within ten days.
8. With the above modification in the sentence of the appellant, this appeal stands dismissed.