J. DAS, J. ( 1 ) THIS criminal revision is directed against the appellate judgement dated 1-7-1985 passed by Sri C. R. Pal, Sessions Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur, in Criminal Appeal No. 59 of 1984 upholding the conviction and sentence dated 4-2-1984 passed by Sri S. K. Patel, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Berhampur, in 2 (a) C. C. No. 257 of 1982 convicting the petitioner under Section 9 (a) of the Opium Act and sentencing him to undergo R. I. for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default to undergo R. I. for two months. ( 2 ) THE short and relevant facts are that on 30-8-1982 at about 8. 30 a. m. the accused-petitioner was coming from Janana Hospital side towards Kommapalli in Berhampur town. On suspicion he was detained by Nrusingha Charan Dhir, S. I. , Excise (P. W. 1) near Tata Benz crossing. The bag of the accused was searched and it was found that the bag contained 3-450 Kgs. of contraband opium wrapped in a plastic paper. There was also another bundle containing the same quantity. A seizure list was prepared at the spot and after obtaining the signature of the accused on the seizure list a copy of the seizure list was given to the accused. After necessary further inquiry, P. R. was submitted and the accused stood his trial and stands convicted and sentenced as above. ( 3 ) IN his defence the accused denied the seizure of the opium from him. He, however, took the plea that he was detained at the place as stated by the P. Ws. and the Excise Officer forcibly took his signature on the seizure list. The accused has also admitted his signature marked Ext. 1/1. ( 4 ) THE trial Court and the appellate Court after elaborate discussion of the evidence on record and the relevant points of law gave clear finding that about 7 Kgs. of opium was seized from the possession of the accused and that the accused had no authority to possess the same. ( 5 ) THE learned advocate for the petitioner Mr. Das argued, that the only independent witness in the case has not supported the prosecution story and hence the whole case should be disbelieved. of opium was seized from the possession of the accused and that the accused had no authority to possess the same. ( 5 ) THE learned advocate for the petitioner Mr. Das argued, that the only independent witness in the case has not supported the prosecution story and hence the whole case should be disbelieved. In support of his contention the learned advocate for the petitioner relied upon the decision reported in (1989) 2 OCR 215 : 1989 Cri LJ (NOC) 156, Bhajana Sahu v. State of Orissa. The above decision is distinguishable. In that case the only seizure witness did not support the prosecution and added to that the seized liquor was also not produced and only an empty jar was produced. In that decision the Hon'ble Judge also came to the finding on the basis of the evidence on record that the signature of the seizure witness, who was the only independent witness, was taken even though he was not present at the time of seizure. In these circumstances, the prosecution case was disbelieved. In this case the facts are different. Subash Chandra Das (P. W. 3) is stated to be the independent witness. He has stated that he does not know the accused and in cross-examination he has also stated that the articles were not recovered from the accused. P. W. 3 has further stated that Excise People detained one man and recovered two packets from the bag and the packets contained black materials. P. W. 3 has also stated that a seizure list was prepared and he signed the seizure list and Ext. 1/3 is his signature. He has also stated that he signed after going through the contents. Thus, P. W. 3 has signed the seizure list after fully knowing the contents of the seizure list and the contents of the seizure list clearly go to show that opium was seized from the accused. In his examination under Section 313, Cr. P. C. the accused has also admitted that he gave his signature on the seizure list (Ext. 1/1) at the instance of the excise staff. He of course states that the excise staff forcibly took his signature. The statement of the accused that the excise staff forcibly took his signature is not supported by the material on record and hence, this statement is quite imaginary and afterthought. 1/1) at the instance of the excise staff. He of course states that the excise staff forcibly took his signature. The statement of the accused that the excise staff forcibly took his signature is not supported by the material on record and hence, this statement is quite imaginary and afterthought. The statement of the accused is also material on record and it can be taken into consideration along with other evidence. The sum total of the evidence clearly goes to show that the seizure list was prepared as stated by P. W. 1 and it was signed by the accused and also Subash Chandra Das (P. W. 3) and P. W. 3, according to his own statement, gave his signature on the seizure list after going through the contents. These facts are quite distinguishable from the decision cited above. From all the above circumstances also it is clear that P. W. 3 knowingly tried to support the accused and for that purpose he has not come out with the truth. The lower Courts have rightly held that he has been hostile. Of course the evidence of a hostile witness cannot be discarded in toto, but so much of the evidence which is corroborated by other evidence can be accepted. It is found that even though P. W. 3 has not supported the prosecution case by denying his knowledge on certain matters, still he has given some statements on material facts which are well corroborated by other witnesses. Hence, it will be quite unreasonable to say that the prosecution case is doubtful in view of the evidence of P. W. 3. ( 6 ) THE trial Court and the appellate Court have discussed the other aspects of the case, both factual and legal and they have given clear finding that the accused was in possession of the contraband opium without any authority. The learned advocate for the petitioner has not challenged the said finding. ( 7 ) THE learned advocate for the petitioner Mr. Das submits that previous conviction of the accused has not proved and hence the accused should be released under the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act. In support of his submission the learned advocate for the petitioner relied upon two decisions reported in AIR 1967 Orissa 54, Atmacooi Ramamurty v. State and 1984 (1) Crimes 418, Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab. In support of his submission the learned advocate for the petitioner relied upon two decisions reported in AIR 1967 Orissa 54, Atmacooi Ramamurty v. State and 1984 (1) Crimes 418, Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab. In both the above cases the accused were let off after execution of bonds and the sentences passed against them were suspended. In the Orissa case poppy capsules were recovered and this Court held that the poppy capsules were kept by the accused not for the purpose of preparing opium for his consumption, but for carrying on the business of despatching it to other places and thereby making some profit. Hence, the facts are quite different. The accused was let off under Section4 (1) of the Probation of Offenders Act. In the case reported in the Crimes which is a case of Punjab and Haryana High Court, the poppy husk was recovered and in such circumstances, benefit of Section 360, Cr. P. C. was given and the sentence of the accused was suspended and he was let off on execution of bond. ( 8 ) POPPY husk or poppy capsules can be converted to opium, but those articles cannot be equated with opium. Opium can be readily sold to the consumers. It is a narcotic substance. The sale and circulation of opium is dangerous to the health of the consumer and it is also dangerous to the nation. There is also wide attempt to prevent circulation of narcotic substance including opium not only in India but also on an international scale. The accused-petitioner is a man of Jagannathpur under Chhatrapur P. S. and he had come to Berhampur to take opium and this goes to show that probably the accused-petitioner was carrying on the business of selling opium. In these circumstances, the sentences should be exemplary. ( 9 ) IT may also be mentioned that no report from the Probation Officer had been called for and hence, the antecedents of the accused are not known. After such a long time it is also not desirable to call for any report from the Probation Officer specially when it is not a fit case for giving the benefit of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act. The accused has been sentenced to undergo R. I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. After such a long time it is also not desirable to call for any report from the Probation Officer specially when it is not a fit case for giving the benefit of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act. The accused has been sentenced to undergo R. I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default to undergo R. I. for two months. The sentence was awarded on 4-2-1984 and by now five years have elapsed. Of course the trial Court has observed that the accused was strong and stout although advanced in age. By now the accused must have advanced in age by five years more. Taking these circumstances into consideration, I am of the view that the sentence should be modified and instead of R. I. for two years and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, it will serve the ends of justice, if the accused-petitioner is sentenced to undergo R. I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- (five thousand) and in default to undergo R. I. for three months. ( 10 ) IN the result, subject to modification in the sentence, the revision petition is dismissed and the accused-petitioner is sentenced to undergo R. I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- (five thousand) and in default to undergo R. I. for three months revision dismissed. .