IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

Crl. Jail Appeal No.D-17 of 2023.

PRESENT

Mr. Justice Muhammad Saleem Jessar,

Mr. Justice Khadim Hussain Soomro,

Appellant : Mst. Sehat Khatoon Noonari,

through Mr. Shabir Ahmed Malik, Advocate.

Respondent : The State, through Mr. Ali Anwar Kandhro,

Additional Prosecutor General, Sindh.

Date of hearing : 12.12.2023.

Date of Judgment : 12.12.2023.

J U D G M E N T.

Muhammad Saleem Jessar, J.- Through this criminal jail appeal, appellant Mst. Sehat Khatoon Noonari has challenged the judgment dated 04.07.2023, passed by learned III-Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge for CNS, Larkana, in Spl. Case No.77 of 2022, re-State v. Sehat Khatoon, 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 07 years and to pay fine of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty-five 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 25.10.2022, Inspector Abdul Hameed Bughio of Excise Police Station Larkana Town, during patrolling, on a tip-off, apprehended the appellant/accused Sehat Khatoon wife of Pandhi Khan Noonari at 3.00 p.m., from the main road leading from Larkana to Otha Chowk opposite Unar Petrol Pump and recovered from her possession a red colour shopper containing 3800 sachets(Puryoon) of heroin weighing 1300 grams. After completing requisite formalities at the spot, the appellant and recovered contraband were taken to police station, where FIR was registered on behalf of State.

3. The appellant pleaded ‘not guilty’ to the charge and claimed to be tried and the prosecution to establish the charge examined PW-1 complainant Inspector Abdul Hameed, who also acted as investigating officer, PW-2 Excise Jamadar Zameer Hussain, mashir of the proceedings, and PW-3 EC Kamran Ali, who deposited contraband in the laboratory. They produced the relevant documents in their evidence. The trial Court, on the basis of evidence of these witnesses held the appellant guilty of the charge and sentenced her, as stated above.

4. Learned Counsel for the appellant, at the outset, submits that if the sentence awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period which she has already undergone, he will not press this jail appeal on merits. He submits that the appellant is an aged woman and that she has no past record of her involvement in any case of like nature, therefore, she may be given a chance in her life to rehabilitate herself.

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

6. Per prosecution case, in all 3800 sachets(Purries) of heroin were recovered from the possession of the appellant, which on being weighed along with the paper of sachets became 1300 grams and the entire case property was sealed at the spot and sent for chemical analysis. However, according to the chemical examiner’s report dated 07.11.2022, the gross weight of the property has been shown as 1440 grams, whereas the net weight along with purries is shown as 1300 grams, while the net weight of powder is shown to be 240 grams. About 140 grams have been shown in excess in the gross weight of the property and there is no explanation whatsoever regarding differential and excessive 140 grams shown in gross weight. Any how, since the Counsel for the appellant has preferred to seek reduction in the sentence of appellant instead of arguing the appeal on merits, therefore, by taking into consideration the above discrepancy as mitigating circumstance, we would consider the request so made on behalf of the appellant for reduction of sentence of the appellant to already undergone. According to the jail roll of appellant dated 08.11.2023 furnished by the Superintendent, Juvenile & Women Prison & Correctional Facility @ District Prison, Sukkur, the appellant is shown to have served 01 year and 26 days substantive sentence excluding the remission and has earned remissions for 01 year, 02 months and 04 days, thereby she has served total sentence of 02 years and 03 months as on 21.11.2023 and the unexpired portion of her sentence is shown as 05 years and 03 months, including sentence of fine. The sentence which the appellant has served till date, appears to be adequate and sufficient. Moreover, the appellant is a woman of advance age and she 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.

8. In our opinion, the appellant has sufficiently been punished and she is not shown to be involved in any other case of like nature. Therefore, in order to give a chance to the appellant in her life to rehabilitate herself 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 her by the trial Court vide impugned judgment dated 04.07.2023 is reduced to the imprisonment which she has already served. The sentence of fine is also remitted in the circumstances. Appellant Sehat Khatoon Noonari shall be released forthwith, if she 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/*