Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD RAMZAN VS Respondent: StateHonorable Justice M. Bilal KhanMian Humayoon Aslam
2008 Y L R 2168
2008 Y L R 2168
[Lahore]
Before Sh. Abdul Rashid and M. Bilal Khan, JJ
MUHAMMAD RAMZAN---Appellant
Versus
THE STATE---Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.626 of 2004, heard on 29th June, 2004.
Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)---
----S. 9(b)---Appreciation of evidence---Sentence, reduction in---Sentence of accused recorded by the Trial Court, in circumstances, was rather excessive keeping in view the quantity of recovered narcotics from him---Appeal filed by accused to the extent of his conviction recorded by the Trial Court was dismissed, but same was partly allowed to the extent of his sentence of imprisonment which was reduced to one already undergone by him---Sentence of fine was also reduced from Rs. 25,000 to Rs.10,000.
Mian Humayoon Aslam for Appellant.
Saif-Ullah Khan Khalid for the State.
Date of hearing: 29th June, 2004.
JUDGMENT
M. BILAL KHAN, J.--Muhammad Ramzan appellant was convicted for an offence under section 9(b) of C.N.S.A. 1997 vide judgment, dated 22-4-2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions 'Judge Special Court C.N.S.A., Khushab and was sentenced to two years' R.I along with a fine of Rs.25,000 in default whereof he was ordered to undergo S.I. for six months. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. was also awarded to Muhammad Ramzan accused. The appellant has challenged his conviction and sentence before this Court through the present appeal.
2. The allegation against the appellant is that on 7-1-2004 at 5-10 p.m. he had been apprehended by a raiding police party and Charas weighing 510 grams along with cash amounting to Rs.1000 was recovered from his possession. Regarding this incident F.I.R. No.7, dated 7-1-2004 under section 9(b) of C.N.S.A. 1997 was recorded at Police Station Khushab.
3. At the very outset the learned counsel for the appellant has stated that he does not challenge the conviction of the appellant recorded by the learned trial Court but he only prays for reduction of the sentence of the appellant.
4. As against that, the learned counsel for the State has maintained that as long as the conviction of the appellant was not disturbed by this Court he has nothing much to say on the quantum of sentence as the same lies within the discretion of the Court. While looking at the appellant's sentence of imprisonment we have found the same to be rather excessive keeping in view the quantity of recovered narcotic from him.
5. For what has been discussed above, this appeal is dismissed to the extent of the appellant's conviction recorded by the learned trial Court but the same is partly allowed to the extent of the appellant's sentence of imprisonment which is hereby reduced to the one already undergone by him. The sentence of fine is also reduced from Rs.25,000 to Rs.10,000 only in default in payment whereof he is directed to undergo three months' R.I. This appeal is disposed of in these terms.
H.B.T./M-582/L Order accordingly.