IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

Crl. Jail Appeal No.D-32 of 2023.

PRESENT

Mr. Justice Muhammad Saleem Jessar,

Mr. Justice Khadim Hussain Soomro,

Appellant : Riaz Ahmed Shaikh in person (produced in custody).

Respondent : The State, through Mr. Aitbar Ali Bullo, Deputy

Prosecutor General.

Date of hearing : 07.11.2023.

Date of Judgment : 07.11.2023.

J U D G M E N T.

Muhammad Saleem Jessar, J.- Through this criminal jail appeal, appellant Riaz Ahmed son of Hakim Ali Shaikh has challenged the judgment dated 05.09.2023, passed by learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge for Control of Narcotic Substances, (MCTC), Shikarpur, in Spl. Case No.21 of 2022 re-State v. Riaz Ahmed Shaikh, whereby the appellant having been found guilty of the charge was convicted for offence under Section 9(c), Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 09 years and to pay fine of Rs.80,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only), in case of default in payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for 06 months more, with benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C.

2. Briefly, the facts of the prosecution case are that on 12.11.2021, ASI Mir Hassan Chandio of PS Madeji, during patrolling apprehended the appellant/accused Riaz Ahmed Shaikh at 6.30 p.m., near Jalbani Diversion on Sukkur-Larkana Highway road and recovered from his possession charas weighing four kilograms from blue shopper lying in a black colour bag. After completing requisite formalities at the spot, the appellant and recovered charas were taken to police station, where FIR was registered.

3. The appellant pleaded ‘not guilty’ to the charge and claimed to be tried and the prosecution examined PW-1 SIP Maqsood Ahmed Jalbani, PW-2 complainant ASI Mir Hassan Chandio, PW-3 PC Zahid Hussain, PW-4 ASI Abdul Sattar Memon, PW-5 SIP Kamaluddin Jeho and PW-6 HC Altaf Ali Shah. They produced the relevant documents. The trial Court, on the basis of evidence of these witnesses held the appellant guilty of the charge and sentenced him, as stated above.

4. The appellant, who is produced in custody, submits that if the sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period which he has already undergone, he will not press this jail appeal on merit. He has repented over the alleged offence, saying that he will not repeat the same, hence he may be given a chance in his life to rehabilitate himself.

5. Learned Deputy Prosecutor General raised no objection to the request made by the appellant for reduction of the sentence, contending that the appellant has sufficiently been punished, as he has remained in jail for sufficient period.

6. According to the jail roll of appellant dated 07.11.2023 furnished by the Senior Superintendent, Central Prison & Correctional Facility, Sukkur, the appellant is shown to have served 01 years, 11 months and 25 days of sentence and has earned remissions for 04 years, 03 months and 13 days, thereby he has served total sentence of more than 06 years and the unexpired portion of his sentence is shown as 03 years, 02 months and 22 days, including sentence of fine. The sentence which the appellant has served till date, appears to be adequate and sufficient. Moreover, the appellant is young man of 31 years of age and he is not shown to be involved in any other case of like nature.

7. In the case of Niaz-ud-Din v. The State (2007 SCMR 206), the Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to reduce the sentence of imprisonment for ten years awarded for possessing five kilograms of heroin to imprisonment for six years. It may be observed here that there is lot of difference between charas and heroin with reference to their injurious effect on health and monetary benefit to the persons trafficking in the business.

8. In our opinion, the appellant has sufficiently been punished and he is not shown to be involved in any other case of like nature. Therefore, in order to give a chance to the appellant in his life to rehabilitate himself so also following the dictum laid down in the cases of Gul Naseeb v. The State (2008 SCMR 670) and Niaz-ud-Din v. The State (2007 SCMR 206), instant appeal is dismissed as not pressed and the impugned judgment to the extent of conviction of the appellant is maintained; however, the sentence awarded to him by the trial Court vide impugned judgment dated 05.09.2023 is reduced to the imprisonment which he has already served. The sentence of fine is also remitted in the circumstances. Appellant Riaz Ahmed Shaikh shall be released forthwith, if he is not required to be detained in any other case.

9. With the above modification in the sentence, this criminal jail appeal is disposed of.

JUDGE

Qazi Tahir PA/*