Judgment Sheet.

 HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIRT COURT HYDERABAD.

Present:

1. Mr. Justice Sajjad Ali Shah,

2. Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi,

Cr. Appeal No.D-43 of 2006.

Bakht and another. . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .Appellant.

                                    Versus.

The State. . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Respondent.

Date of hearing:                     02.06.2010.

Date of Judgment:                 02.06.2010.

Appellants:                                                     Through Mr. Shoukat Ali Pathan, Advocate.

Respondent:                                                   The State through Mr. S. Meeral Shah, Deputy Prosecutor General.

J U D G M E N T.

SAJJAD ALI SHAH, J-.       Appellants Bakht and Jawaid upon being found guilty of an offence under section 9(C) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, were convicted and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.10,00,000/- each and on account of non-payment of fine, further imprisonment for 06 months.

            Learned counsel for the appellants at the very outset has contended that the appellants would not press the instant appeal if while maintaining the conviction the sentence is reduced to one already undergone. Per learned counsel the appellants have already undergone more than 18 years and 01 day including remissions. He further states that the appellants have learnt lesson and have repented and undertake not to repeat such offence. They being the sole bread earner of their respective family deserve a lenient treatment.

            In facts and circumstances, learned D.P.G. states that in case the conviction is maintained he would have no objection for reduction of the sentence.

            We have heard the learned counsel and perused the record. It appears that on recovery of 30 and 35 kilograms of Charas from appellants Bakht and Javed, respectively, the trial Court has convicted them to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.10,00,000/- each. The jail-roll, which has been placed on record, reflects that the appellants have already undergone more than 18 years and 01 day and since the appellants being youngman have repented, therefore, deserve lenient treatment. It is also important to note that 30 and 35 slabs of 1 kilogram each were recovered from appellants Bakht and Javed, respectively, but sample of only 10 grams from each lot was sent for Chemical Examination leaving the status of remaining substance material. In similar circumstances the apex Court in the case of MUHAMMAD HASHIM v. THE STATE (P L D 2004 S.C. 856), where 4 kilograms of Charas in 288 rods was recovered and sample of only 4 gram was drawn from any of the rods, had set aside the conviction. In the instance case since the appellants are not pressing the appeal, therefore, we while dismissing the appeal and maintaining the conviction reduce the sentence to one already undergone and remit the fine. The appellants shall be released forthwith if not required in any other custody case.

                                                                                                                 JUDGE

                                                                                                JUDGE

S