K. L. SHRIVASTAVA, J. ( 1 ) - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 10. 7. 87 passed by the lind Additional Sessions Judge, Ratlam, in Sessions Trial No. 42 of 1987, whereby the appellant has been convicted under section 8/18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short the Act) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further rigorous imprisonment for five years. ( 2 ) ACCORDING to the prosecution story, on 8. 1. 87, the Assistant Sub-Inspector, Karansingh Kushwaha (P. W. 4) of the police station, Station Road, Ratlam, received information that a person in suspicious circumstances is sitting in the Hotel Jai Bajrang, of Ratlam, (also referred to as Jai Bajrang Tea Stall), and might be having opium. This information was entered in the Rojnamcha at serial No. 650 (vide Ex. P4-C) and the said Karansingh along with the police party reached the spot. ( 3 ) AT the Hotel, the appellant was found sitting covering himself with a Chadar and taking tea. His person was searched in the presenee of the Panch witnesses P. W. 2 Sagarmal, an employee in the hotel, and P. W. 3 Vijay, proprietor of a nearby Pan shop. On search, in a packet of cloth, opium contained in 4 plastic cases tied to the body was found. It weighed 3,500 grams. ( 4 ) FROM the plastic packets, two samples each weighing 50 grams each were taken and were duly sealed under signatures of the Panchas. The remaining opium was also sealed. ( 5 ) THE accused was arrested (vide Ex. P-3) and the investigating officer returned to the police station and entered his return. First information report, vide Ex. P-6, was lodged by him. ( 6 ) THE sample were sent with the police constable Radheshyam to the Opium Factory, Neemuch, vide letter Ex. P-7. ( 7 ) ACCORDING to the report (Ex. P-i) received from Neemuch, the substance sent for examination was, by qualitative and quantitative analysis, found to be opium, within the meaning of Section 2 (xv) of the Act. ( 8 ) ON completion of the investigation, the appellant was prosecuted with the result already stated. ( 9 ) THE defence of the appellant at the trial has been one of denial. According to him, he. ( 8 ) ON completion of the investigation, the appellant was prosecuted with the result already stated. ( 9 ) THE defence of the appellant at the trial has been one of denial. According to him, he. was purchasing a ticket at the Railway Station. Ratlam, at about 11 or 11. 30 P. M. on 7. 1. 87 when he was taken by the police officers towards the Goods Shed of the Narrow Galige and was forced to pick up a packet lying there. He was then taken to the police station and was kept in the lock up. ( 10 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the prosecution witnesses do not fully support the prosecution case of seizure of opium from the person of the appellant at the Jai Bajrang Hotel and it is, therefore, urged that the appellants conviction for the serious crime is wholly unwarranted. My attention has also been invited to the fact that the report Ex. P-i records different contents of the substance when according to the prosecution witnesses, they were part of one and the same substance. ( 11 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the State is that in the circumstances of the case, the evidence of Karan Singh Kushwaha (P. W. 4) alone is sufficient to sustain the appellantts conviction. It is further urged that some corroboration is clearly available in the evidence of the Panch witnesses, as observed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in paragraph 10 of the judgment. ( 12 ) THE point for determination is whether the appeal deserves to be allowed. ( 13 ) THE testimony of P. W. 4 Karan Singh Kushwaha is that on information of a possible case of opium smuggling, he along with a police party, had reached Jai Bajrang Hotel and had found the appellant covering himself with a Chadar. According to him, then he called the Panchas and in their presence, the person of the appellant was searched and opium was found in four packets. He further states that samples from them, as disclosed in the prosecution case, and were sent for analysis. ( 14 ) ACCORDING to the testimony of P. W. 2 Sagarmal, opium was seized at Jai Bajrang Hotel. P. W. 3 Vijay, however, state that the seizure was at the police station. These witnesses have signed Ex. He further states that samples from them, as disclosed in the prosecution case, and were sent for analysis. ( 14 ) ACCORDING to the testimony of P. W. 2 Sagarmal, opium was seized at Jai Bajrang Hotel. P. W. 3 Vijay, however, state that the seizure was at the police station. These witnesses have signed Ex. P2, which is the seizure memo. It records that the seizure was effected at the Jai Bajrang Tea Stall. Therefore, the various of P. W. 3 Vijay regarding the seizure of opium have been done at the police station has rightly been rejected by the learned Sessions Judge. P. W. 2 Sagarmal has also given varying version But in the last, in answer to the Court questions, he has admitted that opium was seized from the person of the appellant and this corroborates the version of P. W. 4 Karan Singh Kushwaha. ( 15 ) IN the circumstances of the present case, I am of the view that the learned Additional Sessions Judge committed no error in relying on the testimony of Karan Singh Kushwaha (P. W. 4), which has also been corroborated by the evidence of P. W. 2 Sagarmal. It may be pointed out that these witnesses have not been cross-examined with a view to establish the defence version that the appellant was arrested earlier, as stated by him. ( 16 ) THE evidence of P. W. 1 Jagdish Jahawar, Chemical Assistant, is to the effect that he had examined the contents of the duly sealed packets of samples after opening the seals and had found that they contained opium. ( 17 ) AS a result of the foregoing discussion, I find that the impugned judgment does not suffer from any infirmity and the appellants conviction in respect of the offence under section 8/18 of the Act is well warranted. ( 18 ) THIS bring us to the question of sentence. The appellant has been sentenced to the minimum sentence of imprisonment and fine for the offence. However, I find that rigorous imprisonment for five years in default of payment of fine, is rather harsh and therefore, deserves to be suitably reduced. ( 19 ) IN the result, the appeal succeeds only partly. The appellants conviction under section 8/18 of the Act is maintained. The sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- is also maintained. ( 19 ) IN the result, the appeal succeeds only partly. The appellants conviction under section 8/18 of the Act is maintained. The sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- is also maintained. However, instead of undergoing rigorous imprisonment for five years in default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo rigorous imprisonment only for two years. The appeal shall stand disposed of with the aforesaid modification in the sentence. .