Judgment RAJENDRA SAXENA, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 9. 3. 1995 passed by the learned Special Judge, N. D. P. S. Cases (Addi. Sessions Judge, Ratangarh), whereby he convicted the appellant for the offence under section 8120 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short the Act) and sentenced him for three years R. I. and a fine of Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. fifty thousand) and in default, to further undergo R. I. for one year. ( 2 ) STATED in succinct the relevant facts are that on 3. 5. 1994 PW 7 Rajendra Singh S. H. O. Police Station Rajaldeshar received source information to the effect that one, the appellant was selling Ganjat in front of the cabin of Girdhari Lal Swami, which was reduced in writing vide memo Ex. P. 11. Thereupon, Rajendra Singh took Motbirs PW 1 Girdhari Lal Swami and PW 4 Murlidhar, alongwith the police party, went to the said cabin stalled near Bus Station Rajaldeshar. The appellant was found sitting on a bench in front of the said cabin. He was informed that whether he liked that his search be made in presence of a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate. But, the appellant gave his consent that his search be conducted by Rajendra Singh. Thereupon, a search was made and from the pockets of his Pajama, eight packets (Pudias) containing Ganja were found. Those Pudiast contained 2ograms of Ganja and for which the appellant did not possess any licence. Sample of the said Ganja was taken, which was sealed. The remaining Ganja was also sealed separately and recovery memo Ex. P. 3 was prepared. The appellant was arrested. Thereafter, the investigation of the case was conducted by PW 6 Narendra Singh, S. H. O. , Police Station Ratangarh, who was directed by the Circle Officer Police. The sealed packet of the sample was sent to the State Forensic Science Laboratory and as per F. S. L. Report Ex. P. 16, the said sample was found to be of Ganja. ( 3 ) AFTER completion of the investigation, a challan was filed before the learned Special Judge, N. D. P. S. cases. Charge for the offence under section 20 of the Act was framed against the appellant who denied the indictment. The prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses. P. 16, the said sample was found to be of Ganja. ( 3 ) AFTER completion of the investigation, a challan was filed before the learned Special Judge, N. D. P. S. cases. Charge for the offence under section 20 of the Act was framed against the appellant who denied the indictment. The prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses. The appellant in his plea recorded under Section 13 Cr. P. C. , denied the circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence and asserted that he is an addict of taking of Ganja that at the time of alleged incident he was smoking Ganja", that he did not possess any licence, that he was arrested alongwith the Chilam of Ganja by the Police and that a false case has been foisted against him. In defence, he did not adduce any evidence. After trial, the learned trial Judge found the appellant guilty for the offence under section 20 of the Act and sentenced him in the matter indicated above. Hence, this appeal. ( 4 ) I have heard Shri Suresh Kumbhat, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri H. R. Panwar, learned Public Prosecutor at length and carefully perused the record of the lower Court. The contention of Shri Kumbhat is that Motbirs have not supported the prosecution version at all and they have been declared hostile. However, they have supported the defence taken by the appellant and stated that the appellant is an addict and in habit of smoking Ganja. His another contention is that a small quantityt of Ganja has been recovered from the possession of the appellant which was being used for his personal consumption and that there is not an iota of evidence to establish that the appellant was engaged in selling Ganja and, as such, at the most the offence made out against the appellant does not travel beyond the offence punishable under section 27 of the Act. He has also submitted that keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of this case, the quantum of punishment inflicted to the appellant is also excessive, exorbitant and shocking to the conscience. On the other hand, Shri Panwar, learned Public Prosecutor has reiterated the reasoning given by the learned trial Judge and supported the impugned judgment. ( 5 ) I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions. On the other hand, Shri Panwar, learned Public Prosecutor has reiterated the reasoning given by the learned trial Judge and supported the impugned judgment. ( 5 ) I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions. There is not a fringe of evidence even to suggest that the appellant was engaged in selling Ganja as was disclosed in the source information. PW 1 Girdhari Lal and PW 4 Murlidhar have deposed that when the police party came, the appellant was smoking Ganja in a Chilam. They have not supported the contents of the recovery memo Ex P. 3 and, as such, they have been declared hostile. Both of them have consistently stated that the appellant smokes Ganja for last 10-15 years. Admittedly, the appellant was found in possession of small quantity of Ganja weighing 20 grams only. In his plea recorded under section 313 Cr. P. C. also he has asserted that he is in addict of taking Ganja, that he was smoking the Chilam containing Ganja at the time of alleged incident and that he did not possess any licence. From the evidence recorded in this case, it stands fairly proved that 20 grams Ganja recovered from the possession of the appellant was intended for his personal consumption and not for sale or distribution. In such circumstances, the learned trial Judge has not correctly scanned and evaluated the evidence in this case and committed grave error in convicting the appellant under section 20 of the Act. On the other hand, to my mind, the prosecution has successfully brought home beyond reasonable doubt the offence under section 27 of the Act, which is punishable for a term which may extend to six months or with fine or with both. ( 6 ) A perusal of the record of the lower Court reveals that the appellant remained under detention from 3. 5. 1994 to 23. 6. 1994 when he was bailed out by the Honble Supreme Court and, thereafter, he is under detention since 9th March 1995 till this date. Thus, he has already suffered sentence for a period of four months. 5. 1994 to 23. 6. 1994 when he was bailed out by the Honble Supreme Court and, thereafter, he is under detention since 9th March 1995 till this date. Thus, he has already suffered sentence for a period of four months. ( 7 ) KEEPING in view the small quantity of Ganja recovered from the possession of the appellant and the fact that it was intended for his personal use as also the facts and circumstances of this case, the quantum of punishment awarded to the appellant is positively excessive. To my mind, the sentence for the period already undergone by the appellant and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- would suffice to meet the ends of justice. ( 8 ) IN the result, this appeal is partly allowed and the conviction and sentence of the appellant Girdhari Lal for the offence under section 20 of the Act are hereby set aside. However, he is convicted for the offence under section 27 of the Act and sentenced to the period already undergone by him alid a fine of Rs. 1,000/- (Rs. one thousand only ). In default of payment of fine, he will further undergo R. I. for one month. The Superintendent, Central Jail, where the appellant is undergoing sentence be inforn led accordingly. Appeal partly allowed. Conviction u/s 20 NDPS Act set aside. Appellant convicted for offence u/s 27.