' This criminal appeal is directed against the order dated 4-3-2013 passed by the learned ASJ/Judge Special Court for C.N.S.A., 1997, Jand, in case F.I.R. No,4 of 2013 dated 22-1-2013 under section 9(b), C.N.S.A., 1997, Police Station Basal, District Attock, whereby the appellant confessed his guilt before the learned trial court so he was convicted and sentenced to 1 year and 3 months' RI with a fine of Rs,9,000 and in default thereof to further undergo 3 months and 15 days' SI. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was also extended to him.
2. The prosecution story, in brief, as per contents of F.I.R. Is that on 22-1-2013 at about 10-30 a.m., the petitioner was apprehended by the police and from his possession contraband heroin weighing 113 grams was recovered, hence this case.
3. After receiving the incomplete report under section 173, Cr.P.C. By the learned Magistrate Section 30, Jand, the matter was referred to the Worthy Sessions Judge, Attock on 6-2-2013 on the ground that the offence is triable by the Court of Sessions. On 22-2-2013, the appellant was produced in police custody, the copies were distributed to him and the proceedings were adjourned for framing of the charge on 4-3-2013. On 4-3-2013, the appellant was produced in police custody and on the said date, he confessed his guilt.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the learned trial Court has committed material irregularity while recording confession of the appellant and the confessional statement of the appellant is recorded in hasty manner and as such the same is liable to be set aside.
5. On the other hand, the learned DPG states that narcotics has been recovered from the appellant and he made confessional statement before the learned trial Court on his own so he is not entitled to any concession.
6. Heard. Record perused.
7. On 4-3-2013, charge under section 9(b), C.N.S.A., 1997 was framed against the appellant and the appellant pleaded guilty. The learned trial Court recorded confessional statement of the accused, which is reproduced as under:- "I admit that 113-grams chars was recovered from my possession at the time of my arrest by the police. I am repentant on my act and I shall not repeat the same in future. I put myself at the mercy of the Court and requests that I may very kindly be dealt with leniently. I am making this confession voluntarily without any inducement and pressure."
' Record clearly reveals that the appellant was intimated about the charge and consequences and show-cause notice was given to the accused/appellant under section 243, Cr.P.C. The appellant remained consistent with his statement. The learned trial Court after fulfilling codal formalities recorded his confessional statement and certified that it was true and voluntarily. We are satisfied that the accused/appellant made his confessional statement voluntarily and it does not suffer from any defect of form or substance. No doubt the confession has retraction is not enough to make it involuntarily or diminished its intrinsic value. Even otherwise, by virtue of the provisions of section 412, Cr.P.C. An accused, who pleaded guilty to the charge has no right of appeal against his conviction but he can maintain an appeal only to the extent of the legality of the sentence passed against him by the learned trial Court. The learned trial Court while convicting the accused kept into the consideration ratio decidendi laid down in case of "State v. Ghulam Murtaza (PLD 2009 Lahore 362) duly approved by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Ameer Zaib v.
State (PLD 2012 SC 380). In these circumstances, we have found that the conviction of the appellant recorded by the learned trial Court is not open to any legitimate exception. The conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court is maintained and this appeal is dismissed.