' Muhammad Tariq Abbasi, J.--This single judgment shall dispose of the above captioned matters being outcome of single judgment dated 02.05.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge Multan, whereby in case FIR No. 354 dated 1.10.2006 registered under Section 9-(c) of CNSA 1997, Adnan and Bashir Ahmad alias Lila, appellants although were charge sheeted under Section 9-(b) of CNSA, 1997 but convicted under Section 9-(c) CNSA, 1997 and sentenced to imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- each, in default to further undergo S.I. For six months each with bwere charge sheeted on 17.04.2007 for commission' of offence punishable under Section 9-(b) of CNSA, 1997 but convicted under Section 9-(c) of Act ibid and sentenced in the above mentioned terms, hence the impugned benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
2. At the very outset of the proceedings, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has pointed out that the appellants gment being a patent illegality is not sustainable in the eye of law.
3. The learned Deputy Prosecutor General while realizing the above mentioned situation contends that the attending facts and circumstances demand, remand of the case. The learned counsel for the appellants is also the same view.
4. It is well settled law that when charge is for a major offence but a minor offence is proved, the accused may be convicted of the latter but on the other hand, an accused charged of a minor offence cannot be convicted for a major offence. Reliance in this regard may be made to the case of Muhammad Ashraf Khan Versus The State (2007 P.Cr.L.J 340).
5. The above glaring illegality, whereby the appellants were charge sheered for commission of offence under Section 9-(b) of the Act ibid but sentenced under Section 9-(c) of Act ibid, should not be ignored being not curable. Resultant, there is no other option for us except to set-aside the impugned judgment and remand the case to the learned trial Court, for due proceedings strictly in accordance with law.
6. Consequently, the impugned judgment is set-aside, with a direction to the learned trial Court to take up the matter again and while observing strict compliance of the procedure and law, ensure its decision within a span of three months from receipt of the order.