Ch. Mushtaq Ahmad, J. Appellant Rehan Masih has challenged vires of judgment dated 25.9.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal whereby he was convicted under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and sentenced to 4 Years R.I. with fine of Rs.20000/- and in the event of default of payment thereof to undergo further simple imprisonment for five months with benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C. in case FIR No. 45 dated 28.1.2018 registered under Section 9(c) of CNSA, 1997 at PS City , Sahiwal.
2. As per complaint (Exh.P A) on 28.1.2018 at 11.25 a.m. complainant Kashif Ali, S.I. (PW-3) along-with five other police officials was present at Dar-e-W ala Khokha' falling within territorial jurisdiction of Police Station City, Sahiwal where he received spy information that. Rehan Masih was selling charas at Stadium Chowk and if raid is conducted he can be apprehended with huge quantity of contraband narcotics. On this information complainant alongwith his team came there and apprehended the said person. On personal search, he recovered 1340 grams charas wrapped in blue colour polythene bag out of which 67 grams charas was separated for chemical analysis.
Hence, this case.
3. Investigation of the case was conducted by PW-4 Zia Ullah, S.I. On completion of investigation report under Section 173, Cr.P.C. was submitted before the trial Court where appellant was charged sheeted on 20.2.2018. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to prove charge against the appellant prosecution got examined four witnesses, besides report of Chemical Examiner (Exh.PD). Thereafter statement of appellant was recorded under Section 342, Cr.P.C. On completion of trial he was convicted and sentenced, as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment.
4. Learned counsel submitted that prosec ution has failed to prove charge against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. In alternate he prayed for reduction of sentence to the period already undergone. However , learned Deputy Prosecutor General has opposed this appeal on the ground that contraband charas was recovered from the appellant and that prosecution has proved charged through confidence inspiring evidence.
5. Heard. Record perused.
6. We have gone through the evidence of prosecution to see as to whether charge was proved against appellant or not. We have found that statements of recovery witnesses particularly PW-2 & PW-3) are consistent and confidence inspiring. During investigation conducted by PW-4 Zia Ullah, S.I appellant was found guilty . In defence he could not bring on record any valid or plausible explanation for keeping such quantity of narcotics with him at the time of raid. Besides this, positive report of Punjab Forensic Science Agency (Exh.PD) further supports prosecution version that recovered substance was charas , so conviction recorded by the trial Court is not liable to be set aside.
We have also considered question of reduction in sentence awarded to the appellant. Record shows that appellant has already served out substantial portion of imprisonment and remaining portion of his sentence is short. On prosecution's own showing charas was recovered from possession of the appellant which is less harmful to human life as compared to Heroin. Appellant being first offender deserved to be treated with leniency . Reliance may be placed on the case titled Abdul Rehman v. The State reported in 2011 SCMR 965. Even learned Deputy Prosecutor General appearing on behalf of the State could not produce any record whereby it could be established that appellant was previously convict.
7. While considering the above aspects of this case and taking guidance from judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled State through the Deputy Director (Law), Regional Directorate, Anti-Narcotics Force vs. Mujahid Naseem Lodhi (PLD 2017 SC 671) we are an of the view that grounds are available to depart from the norms and for set out in Ghulam Murtaza's case and it is a fit case calling 'for reduction in sentence.
8. In the above backdrop, while maintaining the conviction of appellant under Section 9(c) of CNSA, 1997 we reduce his sentence from 41/2 years R.I. to the period already served out by him which in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case in our view, would be sufficient to meet the ends of justice. The sentence of fine shall, however , remain intact. Subject to above modification in sentence appeal in hand is dismissed .