ABDUL KARIM KHAN KUNDI, J.--- On the charge that on 11-8-1989 at 19-40 hours Multan Shah, appellant was found in possession of 200 grams of heroin powder wrapped in eight plastic envelopes recovered during his personal search inside street behind Awami Dawakhana near Hussaini Chowrangi, Sherpao Colony, Landhi, Karachi. Prosecution had examined Attaul Munim, A.S.I., (P.W.1) the Investigating Officer and Abdul Ghafoor, a private person (P.W.2) a marginal witness of the recovery memo. Who deposed at the trial that on spy information a police party taking along the private persons went to the place of occurrence and apprehended the appellant who was found in possession of eight plastic envelopes containing heroin powder weighing 200 grams which was recovered from him in the presence of the private persons and the same was sent to the Chemical Examiner wherefrom positive report was received that each plastic packet contained powder of heroin of commercial grade. Investigating A Officer was suggested which he denied that in fact the appellant had quarrelled I with one Munir and Niazi over children and at their instance he was falsely involved in the case. No such suggestion was put to Abdul Ghafoor P.W. He was rather suggested that the `Purls' secured from him did not contain heroin which he denied.
Appellant gave evidence on oath in disproof of the charge and stated that there took place a quarrel between him and Munir Ahmad over children which was reported by Munir Ahmad to the police whereupon he was arrested and implicated in this false case. He produced one Hussain as D.W. Who stated that the said dispute happened between the appellant and Munir at about 4/5 p.m. But he did not remember the date and that Munir had reported the matter to the police. No copy of the report allegedly lodged by Munir with the police about early quarrel has come forth on record.
2. In the circumstances mentioned above, we would maintain the conviction on the charge of recovery of 200 grams of heroin powder from the appellant. His case is covered by the second proviso of Article 4 of the Prohibition of (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 which prescribes a punishment for the offence upto life imprisonment, stripes not exceeding thirty and fine. The appellant is a first offender. The learned counsel representing him further reports 11 that he is the sole bread earner of the family. We would accordingly reduce his sentence from five years imprisonment to three years' imprisonment and fine from Rs.5,000 to Rs.2,000 or in default to*undergo three months' R.I. Further and stripes from twenty to ten stripes. He has already been allowed the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. By the trial Court in the computation of his period of imprisonment, which we also uphold. Appeal is dismissed but sentence is modified.