IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

Crl. Jail Appeal No.D-144 of 2011.

PRESENT:

Mr. Justice Naimatullah Phulpoto,

Mr. Justice Farooq Ahmed Channa,

Appellants : Ahmed Ali Bhagat through Mr. Safdar Ali Ghouri,

Advocate.

Respondent : The State through Mr. Ameer Ahmed Narejo, State Counsel.

Date of hearing : 01.11.2012. Date of Judgment : 01.11.2012.

J U D G M E N T.

Naimatullah Phulpoto, J.- This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 11.11.2011, passed by the learned Sessions/Special Judge for CNS, Larkana, in Special Case No.95/2009, State v. Ahmed Ali Bhagat, Crime No.21/2009 of PS Airport, Larkana, under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997.

2/- Precisely, facts of the prosecution case are that appellant Ahmed Ali faced trial under Section 9(c) of C.N.S. Act, 1997 before the learned Special Judge for CNS, Larkana for the recovery of 10 kilograms of Charas, who vide his judgment dated 11.11.2011 convicted and sentenced the appellant to undergo 08 years R.I. and to pay the fine of Rs.100,000/-. In default whereof to further undergo one year S.I.

3/- Mr. Safdar Ali Ghouri, learned advocate for the appellant, states that he has been instructed not to press this appeal on merits, however makes a request for reduction in the quantum of the sentence, on the ground that appellant is the first offender and only bread-earning person of his large family. Learned advocate for the appellant in support of his contention relied upon a case reported as Gul Raeef Khan v. The State, 2008 SCMR 865.

4/- Mr. Ameer Ahmed Narejo, learned State Counsel, after having gone through the impugned judgment, submits that case has been proved against the appellant from the evidence produced by prosecution. However, he extended no objection if quantum of the sentence is reduced for a period already undergone keeping in view the fact that the appellant is first offender and supporter of a large family.

5/- The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gul Raeef Khan (supra), has been pleased to observe as under :-

“It is true that prosecution has successfully established charge against the petitioner by producing overwhelming incriminating evidence, however, keeping in view the request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and grounds put forward by him for reduction in the quantum of sentence, as well as considering the concession made by learned Assistant Advocate General conviction is maintained, but sentence under 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 is reduced from 14 years’ R.I. to that of seven years’ R.I. with the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. which has already been extended to him by the learned High Court.”

6/- We have carefully heard the learned Counsel for the parties, perused the impugned judgment and jail roll of the appellant.

7/- We have come to the conclusion that prosecution has succeeded to establish its case against the appellant. However, keeping in view the request made by learned advocate for the appellant that he doesn’t press the appeal on merits and further prays that appellant is first offender and only bread-earning person of the family and keeping in view the fact that appellant has remained in jail for 02 years and 08 months and has earned remissions for 03 years and 09 months, total substantive sentence with remissions more than 06 years, therefore, we, while maintaining the conviction, reduce the sentence from 08 years’ R.I. to the period which appellant has already undergone. Appellant shall also pay the fine as ordered by the trial Court. On the payment of the fine appellant shall be released forthwith, if not required to be detained in some other case. In case fine is not paid, appellant shall undergo S.I. for one year more, as ordered by the trial Court.

8/- With the above modification in the quantum of the sentence, impugned judgment is maintained and appeal is disposed of in the above terms accordingly.

JUDGE

Qazi Tahir/*