JUDGMENT - S.M. DAUD, J.:--This appeal takes exception to the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant for the commission of an offence punishable under section 17 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Act). 2. P.W. 1 P.S.I. Kadam was attached to the Narcotic Cell which is a special cell forming part of the Vigilance Branch at Pune. Kadam on 19-3-1988 between 13.30 to 13.40 hrs. received an information that one person known as Vijay Patel was engaged in the sale of narcotic drugs at a certain spot in Narayan Peth in Pune. The area fell within the jurisdiction of Vishrambaug Police Station and therefore, Kadam informed the said police station of the intelligenece received by him. Panchas were sent for and they included P.W.2 Chandrakant Aher. Kadam in company with the panchas and his subordinates went to the spot indicated. The appellant was found at the spot indicated and was told of Kadam desiring to take a search of his person. Appellant was invited to take a search of the persons of Kadam and his companions. Appellant declined. In the search of his person, the appellant was found in possession of a paper wrapped packet. The same was brought out and found to contain a plastic packet. This plastic packet was opened and found to contain brown sugar which in the vernacular is known as "gard". The article was weighed with a pair of scales and the weight was found to be 4 gms. The attachment etc. was recorded in the panchanama at Ex.7. The First Information Report is at Ex.8. The contraband was sent to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory and was examined. The positive certificate at Ex.15 shows that heroin was detected in the sample. In due course, appellant was charge-sheeted. 3. Appellant came out with a series of denials culminating in an assertion that he had been falsely implicated because of a long-standing animosity between him and the police. 4. To substantiate the charge levelled against the appellant, the prosecution examined P.S.I. Kadam, Head Constable Shinde, Panch Aher and some others. Kadam spoke of the impression received by him and that impression has been expressed by him in these words :- "There was powder like Gard. I asked the accused about the contents therein. He replied that it was containing brown sugar i.e. Gard. I inquired from him about the said possession. Kadam spoke of the impression received by him and that impression has been expressed by him in these words :- "There was powder like Gard. I asked the accused about the contents therein. He replied that it was containing brown sugar i.e. Gard. I inquired from him about the said possession. It was transpired that he was an addict." Some of these answers would obviously be not admissible as amounting to a confession made to a Police Officer. But the impression of Kadam about the appellant being an addict remains. That apart, Kadams version was in substantial agreement with the testimony of Aher. That the plastic packet contained brown sugar is further borne out by the certificate at Ex.15. Taking all these factors into consideration the learned Additional Sessions Judge found appellant guilty under Section 17 of the Act and sentenced him to R.I. for 10 years and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000. Non-payment was to entail additional R.I. for two years. 5 Learned Counsel for the appellant Ms. Gupta contends that the charge had not been satisfactorily established, and in the alternative, that section 27 of the Act was attracted. So far as the main contention of the learned Counsel is concerned, we cannot agree. The version of Kadam is in conformity with the panchanama at Ex.7 and the FIR at Ex.8. Aher who has nothing to his discredit and is in no way amenable to the police, corroborates the account given by Kadam. The claim of the appellant that he has a long-standing feud with the police rests on nothing more than a bare assertion and that too made in the safety of the dock under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. No suggestion about the police harbouring any grudge against the appellant has even been put to Kadam or Shinde when they were under cross-examination. Aher denies that there was any reason for him to be under the thumb of the police. For the first time on 19-3-1988 he figured as a panch and he does not have any antecedents which would make his testimony suspect. Ms. Gupta argues that the information received by Kadam was about appellant selling gard. The quantity of gard found with him was insignificant and there was no money to bear out the information about appellant being engaged in vending brown sugar. Ms. Gupta argues that the information received by Kadam was about appellant selling gard. The quantity of gard found with him was insignificant and there was no money to bear out the information about appellant being engaged in vending brown sugar. In relation to the quantity we shall come to that at a later stage. But the smallness of the quantity is also consistent with the major portion of the drug having been disposed of before the apprehension of the appellant. As to the absence of cash, that is a factor which is of some significance. No money was found on the person of the appellant though more than an hour intervened between the receipt of the information and the actual apprehension of the appellant and his search. While this does not discredit the witnesses, it does indicate that the appellant was not engaged in the sale of the drug. That he was an addict is the impression of an experienced Officer like Kadam. 6. Turning to the alternative submission of Ms. Gupta, we agree with the learned Public Prosecutor that the burden lies upon the appellant in case he wants to take advantage of section 27 of the Act. But where the prosecution itself admits the existence of facts necessary to attract section 27, the burden shifts in favour of the accused. This section is as follows:- "27. Gupta, we agree with the learned Public Prosecutor that the burden lies upon the appellant in case he wants to take advantage of section 27 of the Act. But where the prosecution itself admits the existence of facts necessary to attract section 27, the burden shifts in favour of the accused. This section is as follows:- "27. Punishment for illegal possession in small quantity for personal consumption of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or consumption of such drug or substance-whoever, in contravention of any provision of this Act, or any rule or order made or permit issued thereunder, possesses in a small quantity, any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance, which is proved to have been intended for his personal consumption and not for sale or distribution or consumes any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance, shall, notwithstanding anything contained in this chapter, be punishable - (a) where the natcotic drug or psychotropic substance possessed or consumed is cocaine, morphine, diacetylmorphine or any other narcotic drug or any psychotropic substance as may be specified in this behalf by the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine or with both; and (b) where the narcotic drug or psychotropic substance possessed or consumed is other than those specified in or under Clause (a), with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine or with both." From this it is clear that the smallness of the quantity is a circumstance justifying the inference of the person in possession being an addict and possessing the drug to satisfy a personal craving for consumption. At the relevant time the small quantity prescribed by the Central Government vide a notification in the Official Gazette was 250 milli-grammes. Here, the quantity is given out to be 4 grammes which is near about 16 times more than the prescribed small quantity. But the weight of 4 grammes is inclusive of the container. In the panchanama at Ex.7 the weight is described as under :- "400.00 One rough paper pudi. After opening it one small plasttic pudi containing Gard powder was seen. It was weighed with pudi on the scale. It was found weighing 4 gms. 400.00 In the muddemal stuff at Ex.4-A, the description of the property is :- "One rough paper packet. After opening it one small plasttic pudi containing Gard powder was seen. It was weighed with pudi on the scale. It was found weighing 4 gms. 400.00 In the muddemal stuff at Ex.4-A, the description of the property is :- "One rough paper packet. After opening it, one small plastic pudi (packet) containing Gard powder in it. The weight with the pudi (packet) was 4 gms." Ms. Gupta argues, and with justification, that for all we know the weighment was with the rough paper wrapper and the plastic cover and that even if the weighment of the contraband was with the plastic cover, it is quite possible that the heroins weight was within the notified small quantity. The learned Public Prosecutor disputes this submission saying that the outer wrapper made up of rough paper was not thrown into the scales, and that even otherwise the plastic container could not have weighed all that much. The mater cannot be left to surmises. Taken in conjunction with Kadams impression about the appellant being an addict and the absence of money on his person, we hold that section 27 of the Act is attracted. For that reason, the conviction though affirmed will of course result in the difference in the sentence. 7. Appeal is partly allowed with conviction being affirmed, but with the reduction of the sentence to one year. If the said period be over and it does seem to be over, appellant shall be released forthwith unless wanted in connection with some other case. Appeal partly allowed. Appeal partly allowed.