Raja Shahid Mehmood Abbasi, J.--This criminal appeal is directed again st the judgment dated 31.08.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Taxila in case FIR No. 625 dated 04.12.2016, under Section 9-C of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997, Police Station Taxila, whereby he convicted, Matloob Hussain Shah, appellant under Section 9-C of the Act ibid and sentenced him to undergo four (04) years and six (06) months R.I. with fine of Rs. 20,000/- or in default whereof to further undergo S.I. for five (05) months besides giving him the benefit of Section 382-B, Cr .P.C.
2. Succinctly stated the facts leading to the filing of instant appeal are that on 04.12.2016 at about 12:30 p.m., the contingent of Police Station 'Taxila', on the tip of spy information, apprehended the appellant in a street of Mohallah Majawar and got recovered charas Paira numa weighing 1350 grams. Hence, the FIR.
3. At the very outset learned counsel for the appellant contends that he does not dispute the conviction awarded by the learned trial Court to the appellant under Section 9-C of the Act, however , he prays for reduction of the sentence as the appellant is a first offender and he has expressed remorse, and repentance with an assurance not to deal with narcotics in future.
4. Conversely , the learned Law Officer submits that the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant and he does not deserve any further leniency .
5. Heard. Record perused.
6. It has been observed by us that appellant was apprehended by the police party at the spot and recovered 1350 grams of charas paira numa from his poss ession. 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. 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. So far as the quantum of sentence of the appellant is concerned, we have observed that the appellant is first offender and he never remained involved in any other criminal case. He was arrested on 04.12.2016 and at the time of pronouncement of judgment by the learned trial Court he was in custody . His sentence was sentence was suspended by this Court on 29.05.2019, thus he has already served out more than 21/2 year of his sentence. He also faced the agony of protracted trial coupled with incarceration, therefore, he should be given an opportunity to mend his ways. Hence, while relying upon cases of Khuda Bakhsh vs. The State (2015 SCMR 735) & The State through Deputy Director (Law) Regional Directorate, Anti-Narcotics Force us. Mujahid Naseem Lodhi (PLJ 2017 SC 660), the sentence of the appellant is reduce d to the period already undergone by him which includes the sentence in default of payment of fine. The execution of his sentence was suspended by this Court vide order dated 29.05.2019, therefore, his sureties are discharged.
7. With the above mentioned modificatio n in sentence of the appellant, the appeal in hand is dismissed. The disposal of the case property shall be as ordered by the learned trial Court.