Meaning thereby that he has not only confessed his guilt, but has also undertaken that in future, he would be a law abiding citizen of Pakistan, without commission of any illegal act--In such like situation, Court is of opinion that reduction in sentence of appellant, would definitely meet ends of justice-

 PLJ 2023 Cr.C. (Note) 22

Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 (XXV of 1997)--

----Ss. 9(c) & 48--Conviction and sentence--Challenge to--Recovery of charas--Appreciation of evidence--Modification/alteration in sentence--Appellant guilty, for charge and convicted him, for above said offence--As about quantum of sentence, required to appellant, it is stated that he, through his counsel, hot; contended before Court, in above stated manner--Meaning thereby that he has not only confessed his guilt, but has also undertaken that in future, he would be a law abiding citizen of Pakistan, without commission of any illegal act--In such like situation, Court is of opinion that reduction in sentence of appellant, would definitely meet ends of justice--Appeal dismissed.                                                                                        [Para 6] A

PLD 2017 SC 671.

Miss Farzana Mumtaz, Advocate for Appellant.

Mr. Naveed Ahmad Warraich, Deputy District Public Prosecutor for State.

Date of hearing: 15.2.2021.

 PLJ 2023 Cr.C. (Note) 22
[Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench]
Present: Muhammad Tariq Abbasi and Sadiq Mahmud Khurram, JJ.
MUHAMMAD NAEEM--Appellant
versus
STATE--Respondent
Crl. A. No. 239 of 2020, heard on 15.2.2021.

Judgment

Muhammad Tariq Abbasi, J.--This appeal challenges conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant namely, Muhammad Naeem (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), vide judgment, dated 22,02.2020, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge CNS, Rawalpindi.

2. A case FIR No. 576, dated 30.04.2019, under Section 9© of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), at Police Station Sadiqabad, District Rawalpindi, was registered, against the appellant, with the precise charge, that when he, through a car Registration No. ICT-SG/762, was traveling and due to suspicion, stopped and checked by the Police party, two packets of ‘charas’, each weighing 1000 grams, thus total weighing 2000 grams, were recovered from his possession.

3. The appellant was challaned to the above said learned Court, where after completion of due proceedings, the judgment in question was pronounced, whereby he was convicted, for offence under Section 9(c) of the Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 04 years and 6 months, alongwith fine of Rs. 20,000/-, in default whereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for 05 months, with benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.PC. confiscation of the above mentioned vehicle, in favour of the Sate, was also directed by the learned trial Court.

4. Today, at the very outset, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has instructed him to state before the Court, that he does not contest his conviction, recorded through the impugned judgment, but only prays for reduction in sentence, with an undertaking that hereinafter, he would be a good citizen of Pakistan, without even thinking for any illegal act.

5. Upon the above mentioned contention, laid down on behalf of the appellant, the learned Prosecutor has not shown any serious objection, for concession in sentence to him.

6. It has been observed-that the learned trial Court, under correct appreciation and evaluation of the evidence on record, when had reached to the conclusion about commission of the offence by the appellant, had rightly held the appellant guilty, for the charge and convicted him, for the above said offence. As about quantum of sentence, required to the appellant, it is stated that he, through his learned counsel, has contended before the Court, in the above stated manner. Meaning thereby that he has not only confessed his guilt, but has also undertaken that in future, he would be a law abiding citizen of Pakistan, without commission of any illegal act. In such like situation, the Court is of the opinion that reduction in sentence of the appellant, would definitely meet the ends of justice. If in this regard, any case law is required, reliance may be placed on the case titled “State through the Deputy Director (Law), Regional Directorate, Anti-Narcotics Force versus Mujahid Naseem Lodhi” reported as “PLD 2017 Supreme Court 617”

7. Consequently, the conviction of the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Act is maintained, but his sentence of imprisonment is reduced to rigorougs imprisonment for 03 years. The amount of fine, prescribed by the learned trial Court, is maintained and consequences in its default, shall also remain the same. The appellant shall be entitled to benefit of Section 382-B Cr.PC. The disposal of the case property, shall be as directed by the learned trial Court, in the impugned judgment.

8. With the above mentioned modification/alteration in sentence of imprisonment of the appellant, the appeal is dismissed.

(A.A.K.)          Appeal dismissed