Sentence; Challenge to–Only fact needed to be proved in this case was that appellant was having with him charas, for which he has been convicted–For its proof, prosecution examined only two witnesses who are Excise Officials who said that they left for patrol after making an entry about it in `roznamcha’, but no such entry was produced before Court–charas was, allegedly, secured from appellant, at day time, at a public place, but there is no independent witness–These circumstances indicate a possibility of case having been prepared at Excise Office—That could have been done very conveniently–Further, statements of two witnesses differ in description of some facts e.g. Weightment of charas etc.–Appellant was entitled to benefit of doubt–Appeal allowed. PLJ 2001 Cr.C. (Karachi) 640 Evidence of prosecution is very convincing and there was no justification to involve appellant in a case of recovery of heavy quantity of narcotics; and that defence version advanced by appellant is totally after thought and worth no reliance appellant is facing agony of trial as he is behind bars, therefore, conviction passed by learned trial Court is maintained, but sentence of ten years awarded by learned trial Court is reduced to seven years and fine of Rs. 25,000/- is also reduced to Rs. 10,000/—Appeal partly accepted. PLJ 2003 Cr.C. (Lahore) 249 Raid was conducted in day light, therefore, it could be seen that appellant was holding polythene bag at the time of throwing the same on ground–Statements of both recovery witnesses (police officials) were consistent to each other and their statements force to believe that there was a truth in prosecution version–Report of Chemical Examiner provided blood: to prosecution story as being a corroborative piece of evidence–Whereas defence version is an after thought as appellant failed to convince on question of enmity–He failed to provide details of his enmity with police, therefore, it was not sufficient to say that he has been involved just to please high-ups in hierarchy of Police–Defence version was devoid of any force, therefore, it was rightly rejected by learned trial Court–Point for examination is as to whether there is any circumstance on record to take a lenient view in case of sentence–It appears from report of Superintendent Jail, placed on record that appellant has already undergone sufficient period of his sentence and expected date of his release is 3.5.2005 if amount of fine is paid–Judgment of trial Court maintained–Taking lenient view sentence is reduced to already undergone– PLJ 2003 Cr.C. (Lahore) 211 No contradiction on material points in statements of witnesses, rather they are consistent on material points–Witnesses were put to lengthy cross-examination by defence but they withstood test on all material and relevant aspects–Nothing favourable to accused-appellant could be elicited from their mouth to cause dent in prosecution case–Appellant is alleged to have been implicated falsely and real culprit is stated to have been allowed an opportunity to make good escape in nearby by complainant Inspector but nothing has been brought on record to substantiate assertion–No suggestion in this regard was put to witnesses when they were in witness-box–Plea advanced is without any basis. PLJ 2003 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 353 Accused were found travelling in vehicle from which huge quantity of charts was recovered–Appellant was driving car and was aware of presence of charas and opium–Hence conviction u/S. 9(c) CNSO 1995 is maintained–No evidence that he was owner of charas recovered from car–He being driver at the most has played role of carrier his sentence reduced on this ground–Ladies were not aware of chat-as and opium, which was hidden in car as they took lift and were travelling in car–Prosecution has failed to prove case against them by producing any witness–Their sentences set aside and murder reference against driver replied in negative–Death sentence of driver appellant converted into imprisonment for life– PLJ 2002 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1337 Be that as it any appellant without challenging conviction has prayed for the reduction of sentence on the ground that he has no previous history of dealing in the narcotics-this Court, therefore, in the circumstances with a view t provide him inclined to reduce the sentence-Appellant after his arrest on 29/1/1996 has spent a total period of about 2 years and 5 months in jail facing agony of trial-This Court, Therefore, giving the benefit of S. 382-B, Cr. P. C. to appellant reduce his sentence to the period i.e. 2 years and 5 months, already spent by him in jail-this court is also reducing sentence of fine from Rs. 5000/- to Rs. 1000/- This appeal with reduction and modification in the sentence is dismissed -Appeal dismissed.