IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA.

Crl.Jail Appeal No. D –26 of 2021

Before:

                                          Mr. Justice Irshad Ali Shah.

                                                                      Mr. Justice Arbab Ali Hakro.

Appellant:                       Khair Bux son of Qadir Bux Lohar    

Through Mr.Abdul Rehman Bhutto, Advocate.

The State:                        Through Mr. Aitbar Ali Bullo, D.P.G.

Date of hearing:              26-04-2023.

Date of decision:             26-04-2023.

JUDGMENT

ARBAB ALI HAKRO, J;- It is case of the prosecution that the appellant was found to be in possession of 12 K.Gs of Charas by police party of Excise P.S Jacobabad, for that he was booked and reported upon. The appellant denied the charge and the prosecution to prove it examined complainant E.I Zia-ul-Islam and PW/Mashir E.C Asif Majeed and then closed its side. The appellant in his statement recorded under Section 342 Cr.PC denied the prosecution allegation by pleading innocence, however, he did not examine anyone in his defence or himself on oath. On conclusion of trial, it was observed that only 06 K.Gs have been subjected to chemical examination; therefore, the liability of the appellant would be to that extent; consequently, he was convicted U/S.9 (c) of CNS Act, 1997 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 08 years and to pay fine of Rs.40,000/- and in default whereof, to undergo simple imprisonment for 06 months, with benefit of Section 382-B Cr.PC, by learned Special Judge (CNS)/MCTC-II, Jacobabad, vide judgment dated 10.08.2021, which he has impugned before this Court by preferring the instant criminal jail appeal.

2.       At the very outset, it is stated by learned counsel for the appellant that as per jail roll, the appellant has already undergone substantial sentence of 02 years, 03 month and 25 days, besides this, has also earned remission of 04 years, 11 months and 23 days, in that way he has already undergone more than 07 years of sentence, therefore, he would not press the disposal of instant criminal jail appeal on merits, provided the sentence awarded to him is commuted to one which he has already undergone, which is not opposed by learned Addl.P.G for the State.

3.       Heard arguments and perused the record.

4.       The appellant is 40 years of the age, he is said to be sole bread earner of his family; no criminal record against him has been produced. By not pressing the disposal of his appeal on merits, he has shown remorse, thus there is likelihood of his reformation. By considering all these factors as mitigating circumstances, the sentence awarded to the appellant for the said offence is reduced to one which he has already undergone which includes the sentence on account of his failure to make payment of fine.

5.       Subject to above modification, the instant Criminal Jail Appeal is disposed of accordingly.

                 JUDGE

JUDGE