M ANZOOR AHM AD M ALIK, J. Shereen Zada Khan (appellant) alongwith his co-accused was indicted by the learned Judge Special Court Control of Narcotic Substances Lahore in case FIR No 16/2011 dated 20.06.2001 offence under Sections 9 (c), 15 and 17 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 registered at Police Station Anti-Narcotic Force Lahore. After regular trial, he was convicted under Section 9(c)/15 CNSA, 1.997 and sentenced to death. He was also directed to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000,000/- (rupees one million) and in default of payment of fine he had to serve simple imprisonment for one year He was also convicted under Section 17, CNSA, 1997 and sentenced to three years R.I. Two co-accused of the appellant namely Taji Wali and Muhammad Waseem Hashmi were also convicted and sentenced under Section 9(c) of CNSA, 1997 and sentenced to ten years' R.I. They were also directed to pay' fine of Rs. 200,000/- (rupees two hundred thousand only) each and in default of payment of fine, they had to serve simple imprisonment for one year each Both of them were extended the benefit of Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure. Aggrieved of his conviction and sentence Shereen Zada Khan (appellant) and his co-accused Taj Wali Khan filed joint Crl Appeal No. 845 of 2005 which was heard alongwith CSR No. 04 of 2005 and through the impugned judgment, the learned Division Bench of Lahore High Court accepted the appeal partly to the extent of the present appellant and his conviction and sentence under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act; 1997 was set aside.
However, he was convicted under Section 9(b) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years. He was also ordered to pay fine to the tune of Rs. 500,000/- (rupees five hundred thousand only) and in default of payment of tine he had to further undergo one year's simple imprisonment. Conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 17 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, which was riot questioned before the learned appellate Court during the course of arguments was also maintained. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Capital Sentences was answered in the negative and the sentence of death awarded to Shereen Zada Khan (appellant) was not confirmed. Against the judgment of learned appellate court Shereen Zada Khan preferred Crl. Petition No. 303-L of 2012 wherein leave was granted by this Court vide order dated 16.05.2012. Hence this appeal with the leave of the Court.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Special Prosecutor ANF at a considerable length and with their able assistance have also gone through the relevant record.
3. Appellant alongwith his co-accused was apprehended in a vehicle from the parking of Jinnah Hospital Lahore with 53 kilograms of heroin. Samples from the recovered contraband were sent to the Chemical Examiner and report of Chemical Examiner (Exh.PW) is in the positive. In order to prove guilt of the appellant as many as twelve witnesses were produced by the prosecution. All these witnesses remained consistent on material aspects of the case during their cross- examination. The appellant was Ultimately convicted and sentenced under section 9(c), CNSA mainly on the ground that the case property was destroyed without notice to the appellant. A lenient view has already been taken in favour of the appellant. In the circumstances of the case the impugned judgment of the learned Lahore High Court is not open to any exception by this Court.
4. There is another aspect of the case. The appellant was also convicted and sentenced under Section 17 of the CNSA, 1997 by the learned trial Court. During the course of arguments before the learned appellate court, conviction and sentence of the appellant under afore-noted penal head was not questioned which was maintained.
5. Contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that case, against the appellant is covered under Section 9(a), CNSA and not under Section 9(b) CNSA does not hold much water because even in that eventuality conviction of appellant will remain in field and no purpose would be served by reducing his sentence because the appellant has already served out his entire sentence.
7. Nutshell of the above discussion is that the instant appeal is without any merit, which stands dismissed accordingly.