' GHULAM RABBANI, J.--- This is an appeal preferred against the judgment, dated 5-6-2000 passed by the learned Special Judge Narcotics, Dadu, in Sessions Case . No,227 of 1998 under section 9(b) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 convicting the appellant to suffer R.I. For two years and a fine of Rs,10,000 in default to suffer S.I. For six months more
2. Learned counsel for the appellant at the very initial stage agreed that he will not press the appeal on merits and requested that the sentence be reduced to the proportion of the quantity of the narcotics recovered from his possession as the trial Court has failed .To exercise properly its discretion under section 9(b) of Act in awarding punishment.
3. We have considered the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.A.-G.
Provision of section 9(b) provides that if a person is found in possession of narcotic substances with the quantity of 101 to 1000 grams, the sentence may be awarded to him upto 7 years. The reading of this provision makes it manifestly clear that the Legislature has conferred upon the Court a discretion to award lesser or maximum punishment. Obviously, in making the provision discretionary; it does not seem to be the intention of the Legislature that different punishments are awarded to wrong-doers in two sets in similar circumstances. Conversely, a Court shall not be deemed to have acted justly, fairly and properly if a culprit from whom 1000 grams of narcotic substance are recovered is awarded maximum punishment of seven years and same punishment is also awarded to that from whom lesser quantity of narcotic substance is recovered. In our view, while the trial Courts are awarding sentences they should also keep in mind the quantity recovered from the accused persons and the proportion of the sentence to be awarded for that purpose. In this case, admittedly the quantity of narcotics substance is 110 grams Charas and 5 grams of heroin, whereas two- years sentence has been awarded to the appellant.
' In view of the above observations this sentence is not commensurate with the quantity recovered from the possession of the appellant and it is definitely out of proportion. In the circumstances, looking into the quantity of 110 grams Charas and 5 grams heroin, we reduce the sentence awarded to the appellant from .Two years to one year. With this modification the rest of the judgment is upheld. The benefit of section 382, Cr.P.C. Already given will be available to the appellant. Appeal stands disposed of alongwith listed application.
Sentence reduced.