Abdul Ghafoor alias Ghafoora appellant was convicted for an offence under Article 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 for keeping 15 grams of heroin in his possession vide judgment dated 14-1-1990 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Multan and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years and ten stripes. He was also ordered to pay a fine of Rs.3,000 or in default of payment thereof to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The appellant has challenged his conviction and sentences before this Court through the present appeal. During the pendency of this appeal the sentence of imprisonment awarded against the appellant was suspended by this Court on 4-4-1990 and he was released on bail.
2. Today neither the appellant nor his learned counsel have turned up to argue this appeal. I, have, therefore, gone through the record of this case with the assistance of the learned counsel for the State.
3. After going through the record it has been felt by this Court that the evidence produced by the prosecution against the appellant had rightly been believed by the learned trial Court and, therefore no exception can be taken to the finding of guilt recorded against the appellant by the learned trial Court. The sentence awarded against the petitioner, however, warrants interference by this Court in the peculiar circumstances of this case. The occurrence in this case had taken place way back in the year 1988 and the appellant had been convicted by the learned trial Court in the year 1990. During the last twelve years the appellant has been in and out of jail a number of times and he has also faced the agony and anguish of the trial and the present appeal. The order passed by this Court on 4-4-1990 shows that before suspension of his sentence of imprisonment by this Court on the said date the appellant had already spent about fourteen months in jail. In these circumstances I have not felt persuaded to send the appellant back to jail for undergoing the remaining part of his sentence as that would amount to insisting upon a pound of flesh.
4. For what has been discussed above the present appeal is dismissed to the extent of the appellant's conviction but the same is, however, party allowed to the extent of the appellant's sentence. The sentence passed against the appellant is hereby reduced to that already undergone by him. With this modification in the sentence of the appellant the present appeal is disposed of.
The appellant is already on bail. His bail bond/sureties shall stand discharged.