Honble SAXENA, J. — This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 9.3.1995 passed by the learned Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Cases (Addl. Sessions Judge), Ratangarh, whereby he convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 8/20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short the Act) and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty thousand only), in default of payment of fine, to further undergo R.I. for one year. (2). Briefly! the relevant facts are that on 16.2.1991 at about 3.00 P.M. P.W. 7 Taj Mohd., S.H.O., Police Station Dungargarh received a secret information to the effect that "appellant-Raja Ram keeps and sells Ganga in his betal shop situated on the bus stand, Dungargarh and that if a search is conducted immediately, the contraband Ganja can be recovered." Taj Mohd. documented the said information vide memo Ex.P-6 under Section 42 of the Act and after making necessary entries in Rojnamcha Aam (Ex.P-12A), proceeded to bus stand. Immediately thereafter, he reached the Bus Stand alongwith Motbirs P.W.I Padam Nath and P.W. 2 Sohan Ram and P.W.6 Jile Singh, Head Constable. It is alleged that the appellant was found sitting in his shop. Taj Mohd. gave him a written notice Ex.P.4 intimating that a search of his person as also of his betal shop was to be conducted and whether he wanted that such search should be taken in presence of a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer, to which, he consented and gave in writing that his search be taken by the said S.H.O. It is alleged that 210 grams of Ganja which was wrapped in a wax paper and concealed underneath the right leg of the appellant was recovered for which he did not possess any licence. Representative and duplicate sample of 15 grams each were drawn therefrom, which were separately packed and sealed. The remaining seized Ganja was also separately sealed and recovery memo (Ex.P.-l) was drawn. Taj Mohd. also prepared site plan (Ex.P.-2) and memo thereof (Ex.P- 2A). The appellant was arrested. On the report of Taj Mohd., FIR (Ex.P-9) was drawn and a case was registered. A report (Ex.P-10) under section 57 of the Act regarding the arrest and seizure was also sent to Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, Ratangarh. Taj Mohd. also prepared site plan (Ex.P.-2) and memo thereof (Ex.P- 2A). The appellant was arrested. On the report of Taj Mohd., FIR (Ex.P-9) was drawn and a case was registered. A report (Ex.P-10) under section 57 of the Act regarding the arrest and seizure was also sent to Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, Ratangarh. Another report (Ex.P-11) through a written Radiogram message was also sent to Circle Officer and Superintendent of Police, Churu. The sealed packets of samples and seized Ganja were kept in safe custody in the Malkhana of the Police Station. The sealed packet of representative sample was sent to the State Forensic Science Laboratory. The Asstt. Director (Chemical), State Forensic Science Laboratory, Rajasthan, Jaipur vide his report Ex.P-15 opined that on chemical and microscopic examination the said sample was found to be that of Ganja. After usual investigation, a challan was filed, which was ultimately transferred to the Court of learned Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Cases, Ratangarh. (3). The appelant was charged for the offence under section 8/20 of the Act, who pleaded hot guilty. The prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses. The appellant denied all the circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence. However, he did not adduce any evidence. After trial, the learned Special Judge by his impugned judgment found the appellant guilty and sentenced him in the manner indicated above. Hence, this appeal. (4). I have heard Shri Suresh Kumbhat, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri S.K. Vyas, learned Public Prosecutor at length and carefully perused the record of the lower court. (5). Motbirs P.W.1 Padam Nath and P.W.2 Sohan Ram have not supported the prosecution case and turned hostile. However, from the testimony of P.W.6 Jile Singh, Head Constable and P.W.7 Taj Mohd., who have been cross-examined at length and whose testimony has remained unshuttered, it stands well established that 210 grams of Ganja was recovered from the possession of the appellant in his betal shop and that on chemical analysis, the representative sample thereof was found to be that of Ganja. The secret information received by Taj Mohd. was duly recorded vide Memo Ex.P.6. Taj Mohd. has specifically deposed that he had sent the copy of the said information immediately to his immediate superior-Circle Officer, Superintendent of Police, Churu as also to the M.J.M., Ratangarh. On this count, not a single question has been put to him in the cross-examination. The secret information received by Taj Mohd. was duly recorded vide Memo Ex.P.6. Taj Mohd. has specifically deposed that he had sent the copy of the said information immediately to his immediate superior-Circle Officer, Superintendent of Police, Churu as also to the M.J.M., Ratangarh. On this count, not a single question has been put to him in the cross-examination. There is no reason to disbelieve the sworn testimony of P.W.7 Taj Mohd. on this score. In such circumstances, it cannot be held that there was non- compliance of mandatory provisions of Section 42(2) of the Act. (6). From the notice (Ex.P-4) it stands amply proved that P.W.7 Taj Mohd. before taking search had intimated the appellant whether the latter desired that his search be taken in presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate, to which, he specifically gave in writing that he had no objection if his search was conducted by Taj Mohd., S.H.O. Therefore, the provisions of Section 50 of the Act have also not been offended in this case. (7). I have carefully gone through the evidence recorded in this case. In my considered opinion, the learned trial Judge has discussed, analysed and evaluated the prosecution evidence in right perspective and has not committed any illegality either of fact or law in convicting the appellant for the offence under section 8/20 of the Act. (8). The main contention of Shri Kumbhat, learned counsel for the appellant, is that a meagre quantity of Ganja has been recovered from the appellant, but the learned trial Judge has awarded him the maximum sentence, which is highly excessive and exorbitant and shocking to conscience. He has submitted that the appellant has already suffered sentence from 16.2.1991 to 21.2.1991 and, thereafter, from 28.6.1994 till this date. Thus, he has undergone sentence for a period of one year and twelve days and, therefore, his sentence be reduced to the period already undergone by him and his fine should also be reduced. (9). On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has asserted that the sentence awarded to the appellant is not excessive, but adequate. (10). I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions. Section 20 lays down that whoever, in contravention of any provision of this Act or any rule or order made or condition of licence granted thereunder produces, manufactures, possesses, sells, purchases etc. (10). I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions. Section 20 lays down that whoever, in contravention of any provision of this Act or any rule or order made or condition of licence granted thereunder produces, manufactures, possesses, sells, purchases etc. or uses cannabis shall be punishable where such contravention relates to Ganja with R.I. for a term which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to Rs. 50,000/-. Hence, no minimum sentence has been prescribed for the offence punishable under section 20 of the Act, which deals with contravention in relation to cannabis plant and cannabis (Ganja). (11). In the case on hand, the learned Special Judge has awarded the full dose of punishment to the appellant without keeping in view the requisite relevant factors. Only a small quantity of 210 grams of Ganja has been recovered from the possession of the appellant, for which he did not possess any licence. Admittedly, the appellant is not a previous convict either under the provisions of the Act or for any other offence. His past conduct has also not been reported to be bad or suspicious. He is a petty betal vendor. He has suffered considerable amount of mental agony, physical harassment and financial strain during the investigation and trial of this case and also in filing this appeal. He has been under detention and already suffered sentence for a period of one year and twelve days till today. The maximum sentence awarded by the learned trial Judge is positively exorbitant, excessive and shocking to conscience. In my considered opinion, keeping in view all the relevant facts and circumstances of this case, ends of justice shall be secured if his substantive sentence is reduced from five years R.I. to the period already undergone by him and the fine imposed on him is reduced from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 1,000/- (one thousand) only. (12). The upshot of the above discussion is that this appeal partly succeeds. The conviction of the appellant Raja Ram for the offence under section 8/20 of the N.D.P.S. Act is maintained. However, his sentence is reduced from R.I. for five years to the period already undergone by him and the fine is also reduced from Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. fifty thousand) to Rs. 1,000/- (Rs. one thousand) only. The conviction of the appellant Raja Ram for the offence under section 8/20 of the N.D.P.S. Act is maintained. However, his sentence is reduced from R.I. for five years to the period already undergone by him and the fine is also reduced from Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. fifty thousand) to Rs. 1,000/- (Rs. one thousand) only. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall further undergo R.I. for two months. The Jail Authorities be informed accordingly.