' The appellants, namely, Muhammad Anwar, Muhammad Bashir, Muhammad Yousaf, Khadim Hussain son of Charagh Din, Niamat Ali, Muhammad Sharif, Khadim Hussain son of Lal Din, Allah Ditta, Abdul Rashid and Shahbaz, were convicted together with three other persons of an offence under section 156(1)(8)(92) read with section 178 of the Customs Act and were sentenced to suffer imprisonment already undergone after their arrest and to pay fines of Rs, 5,000 each. In default of payment of the fines they were to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one year ach. The appellants have filed this appeal against their conviction and sentences.
2. According to the prosecution on the night of 1st January, 1982 on receipt of information S.I. Ljaz Hussain of Chenab rangers organized a Nakabandi party on the bank of river Ravi in the area of a border post Fatehpur. In the early hours of the next morning at about 3-00 a.m., Nakabandi party found the appellants together with some other persons proceeding in the direction of the river Ravi.
Some of them were carrying bundles on their heads. The Nakabandi party challenged them. Upon this some one from the appellants side fired a burst with a stun gun. The Nakabandi party fired back. Upon this the appellants and their companions threw down the bundles which they were carrying and lay down postrate on the ground. The Nakabandi party arrested them. Amongst other things on searching the bundles 170 kilograms of pistachio of the value of Rs,17,500 and 50 kilograms of same chemical powder of the value of Rs,50,000 were recovered. The appellants and their companions were served with notices under section 171 of the Customs Act and were later challaned for an offence under section 156 (1) (8)(92) of the Customs Act.
3. The appellants pleaded guilty to the charge against them and on their own plea they were convicted by the learned Special Judge.
4. Since the conviction of the appellants is based on their own plea of guilty they are not entitled to challenge the legality of their conviction by virtue of the bar contained in section 412 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
5. As regards the extent and legality of the sentence passed by the learned Special Judge the learned counsel appearing for the appellants stated that they were poor persons and fines imposed by the learned Special Judge were excessive. I do not think that I can accept this contention. In the first instance there is no evidence that the appellants are poor and secondly I do not think that the fines of Rs, 5,000 are excessive or unusually severe. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.