RAJA SHAHID MEHMOOD ABBASI, J.----Appellant, Safi Ullah, was surprised by the contingents of Police Station Kohna, Khanewal from Daha Chowk having in possession of charas weighing 1530 grams. Out of the recovered contraband 78 grams was separated for the purposes of chemical analysis. Ultimately, the FIR No.76 dated 10-03-2019, under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 was registered at Police Station. Kohna, Khanewal through complaint (Ex.PB).
After completion of investigation, the appellant was sent up to face trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khanewal. As he contested the charge, the prosecution was called upon to produce the evidence to prove its case, pursuant whereto, as many as 04 PWs were produced.
Report of Punjab Forensic Science Agency, Lahore confirms the narcotic character as charas. In his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. the appellant contested the prosecution evidence with a denial, however, the learned trial Judge proceeded to convict him under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and sentenced the appellant to undergo R.I. for 04 years and 06 months with fine of Rs.20,000/- in the event of default whereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for 05 months with benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, vires whereof, are being challenged through Criminal Appeal No. 761 of 2019.
2. At the very outset learned counsel for the appellant contends that he does not dispute the conviction of appellant under Section 9(c) of the Act, however, he requested for reduction of the sentence as the appellant is first offender and he has expressed remorse and repentance with an assurance not to deal with narcotics in future. Goes on to maintain that since Charas has been recovered from his possession being less harmful and dangerous as compared to the other narcotic substance like heroin etc. therefore, sentence awarded to the appellant is on higher side and may be reduced appropriately.
3. Conversely, the learned Law Officer submits that the learned trial court has rightly convicted the appellant and he does not deserve any further leniency.
4. Heard. Record perused. It has been observed by us that appellant was apprehended by the police and got recovered abovesaid contraband from his personal possession. The prosecution has proved the guilt of the appellant beyond any reasonable doubt and has successfully discharge its burden through consistent and confidence inspiring evidence. The impugned judgment is based on sound appreciation of evidence and there is nothing on the record to suggest any or animosity against any of the prosecution witnesses. The prosecution case is further strengthen from the positive report of Punjab Forensic Science Agency, Lahore (Ex.PD). In this way, the impugned judgment, resulting into conviction of the appellant for offence under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997, is not open to any exception. Consequently, the conviction of the appellant recorded through the impugned judgment is maintained. As far as quantum of sentence of the appellant is concerned, while considering the nature of the substance being less harmful and dangerous as compared to the other narcotic substance like heroin etc, quantity of the recovered substance and other aspects that the appellant is the first offender, behind the bar since his arrest i.e. 10-03-2019. According to jail report dated 24-03-2021, he has already served out, the substantive portion of his sentence i.e. 02 years, 07 months and 14 days.
Further, the appellant has expressed remorse and repentance with an assurance not to deal with narcotics in future. He should be given an opportunity to mend his ways, hence, the sentence of the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him, which would meet the ends of justice. However, sentence of fine and imprisonment in default thereof shall remain intact. Reliance is placed upon Khuda Bakhsh v. The State (2015 SCMR 733). The State through Deputy Director
(Law) Regional Directorate, Anti-Narcotics Force v. Mujahid Naseem Lodhi (PLD 2017 SC 671) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan held as under:- ....the exercise of jurisdiction and discretion in the matter of the respondent's sentence by the trial Court and the High Court have not been found by us to be open to any legitimate exception, particularly when the reasons recorded for passing a reduced sentence against the respondent and for making a departure from the above mentioned sentencing policy guidelines have been found by us to be proper in the peculiar circumstances of this case...."
To fortify the above view, we have also sought guidance from the case-law reported as Mst.
Sughran and another v. The State (2021 SCMR 109), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan held as under:- " ....The primary purpose behind the Criminal Justice System is to enable an offender to reform and rehabilitate him/herself to rejoin the mainstream life to once again become a useful member thereof. It is not to wreak vengeance. In the present case, we have not been able to find out any material/circumstance to the view the appellant or her deceased partner as being privy at the helm of the consignment; abandoned by those who ensnared them into the trap, they struggled for their release on their own through jail petitions after a trial conducted with craft Substantial period already served out, death of identically placed inmate in the prison, are factors perhaps failing to individually qua, nonetheless, taken into consideration together, cumulatively make out a case to reduce her sentence to the period already undergone...."
5. With the above-mentioned modification in sentence of appellant, the appeal in hand is dismissed. The disposal of the property shall be as ordered by the learned Trial Court.