FAZAL ILAHI KHAN, J.---Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of learned Federal Shariat Court dated 10-7-1995 passed in Criminal Appeal No.32/P of 1995; whereby maintaining the conviction of the petitioner his sentence of 4 years' R.I., and fine of Rs.10,000 imposed by the learned Sessions Judge under Article 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 was reduced to 2 years' R.I., and fine of Rs.2,000 or in default to undergo 2 months' S.I.
2. According to prosecution a raiding party headed by Muhammad Anwar Khan. E.A.C. (Magistrate First Class), Lakki Marwat on 4-8-1993 recovered 600 grams of Charas and 1250 grams opium from the residential house of the petitioner. The petitioner was not available at that the therefore, Mst.
Zarqa his wife present in the house was arrested. Subsequently the petitioner was arrested who made a confessional statement: From the recovered substance sample was taken and sent to the Chemical Examiner for his opinion. The opinion received is in positive. At the trial prosecution examined Abdul Hamid, Head Constable Police Line Lakki, who on receipt of Murasala registered a case against the accused vide F.I.R. Exh. PA. Nazif Shah P.W.2 stated that on receipt of information about the presence of the accused alongwith contraband in his house he alongwith police party, including Said Akbar, A.S.I., under the supervision of Muhammad Anwar Khan, E.A.C. (P.W.3) conducted the raid and recovered the aforementioned contraband. Four grams of Charas and 4 grams of opium was sealed into separate parcels and sent to Chemical Examiner for analysis. He also recovered 2 scales and some weights from inside the house which were also taken into possession. He produced Mst. Zarqa before the Magistrate for recording her confessional statement. On his arrest the petitioner confessed his guilt, therefore, he was also produced before the Magistrate who recorded his confessional statement according to law. Muhammad Anwar Khan, E.A.C. (P.W.3) deposed about the raid and recovery of the contraband from inside the house and that the same was weighed in his presence and taken into possession by the Investigating Officer. Zafarullah Khan, M.I.C. Stated that on 5-8-1993 Mst. Zarqa was produced before him and that she made voluntary confessional statement. Similarly he also recorded the confessional statement of the petitioner. After recording the prosecution evidence accused were examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. In which they denied the recovery of narcotics from the house.
3. The learned trial Court on the basis of the evidence referred to above found the accused/petitioner guilty of the offence under Article 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd)
Order, 1979 and on conviction sentenced him as stated above. Mst. Zarqa his co-accused was acquitted of the charge. In appeal filed by the convict the learned Federal Shariat Court maintained the petitioner's conviction but reduced his sentence from 4 years' R.I. To 2 years' R.I.
With fine of Rs.2,000 or in default in undergo 2 months' S.I., with benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that no public witness from the locality was associated with the raiding party, therefore, it is violative of the mandatory provision of section 103 of the Cr.P.C. And that it rendered the entire proceedings illegal, has not impressed us because in the present case raid was supervised by a Magistrate, thereafter the petitioner confessed his guilt. There is, however, force in the contention of the learned counsel that the maximum sentence of 2 years was provided for possession of the narcotics recovered from the petitioner, therefore, the trial Court was not legally fortified in passing the sentence of 4 years' R.I. Specially when the amendment providing enhancement in the sentence was made in the law subsequent to the occurrence. Learned counsel appearing against the petitioner has, therefore, in view of the overwhelming evidence prayed for reduction in the sentence. Keeping in view the maximum sentence of imprisonment provided for the offence. This petition is converted into appeal and partially allowed in terms that while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner his sentence is reduced to a period of imprisonment already undergone. Disposed of.