1. ' This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment, dated 4-2-1985 of learned Special Judge (Customs & Taxation) Karachi whereby he has convicted the apellant under section 156(1)(8) of the Customs Act, 1969 and has sentenced him to R.I. For one year and a fine of Rs,40,000 in default of the payment whereof he is further sentenced to R.I. For eight months.
2. ' Briefly stated the prosecution case is that on 28-10-1984 at about 4-40 a.m. Appellant was intercepted in the International Departure Hall of Karachi Airport and was bound for London by P.I.A.
3. Flight. During the search 800 grams of heroin powder were recovered from the pockets of overcoat, talcum powder tin and cover of a diary/folder. After completion of other steps of investigation challan was presented in the Court.
4. ' Before the trial Court at the very outset appellant pleaded guilty to the charge and placed himself at the mercy of the Court and he also filed statement in writing which is Exh. 2B on the record. The learned trial Judge on the plea of guilt of appellant convicted him and sentenced as stated above.
5. This appeal is competent only in respect of consideration of question of appropriateness of the sentence. Appeal is not competent on merits because the appellant has pleaded guilty.
6. ' Learned counsel for the appellant has raised before me compassionate grounds for reduction of sentence. According to him appellant comes from decent and respectable family and has committed this offence for the first time. Appellant is a businessman and suffered heavy losses in the business and on account of adversities was placed in very difficult circumstances and was compelled to commit this offence. It is further stated that after the appellant was arrested, his wife due to shock became very ill and was admitted in the hospital and died leaving behind seven children. These grounds were urged before the trial Court also and as it appears from the Impugned judgment the trial Court after consideration of all these compassionate grounds awarded lenient sentence. However, before me an unreported decision of mine is cited in a Case No, Special Criminal Appeal 27/84 (Treichler Erric v. The State), decided on 7-10-1984 in which the trial Court had convicted the appellant for recovery of 800 grams of heroin and sentenced him to R.I. For one year and a fine of Rs,40,000 and in default of the payment of fine R.I. For six months more. On similar compassionate grounds I had reduced the sentence to nine months and maintained the sentence of fine. In this case also I accordingly reduce the sentence from R.I. For one year to nine months and maintain the imposition of fine, but reduce the sentence in default of the payment thereof from 8 months to 4 months. With this modification the appeal is dismissed.