S. P. KHARE, J. ( 1 ) APPELLANT Lachhindar has been convicted under section 20 (b) (1) of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years and to a fine of Rs. 1000/ -. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case is that on 3-7-1997 D. P. Sahu (P. W. 4) received information that the accused has kept Ganja in his house. This information was recorded in Rojnamcha No. 109. The intimation was sent to the City Superintendent of Police. The house off the accused was searched in the presence of the panch witnesses. Three packets of Ganja were found in his house. The weight of this Ganja was 5. 5 Kilogram. The Samples of Ganja were taken and sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory. It was confirmed that the commodity which has been seized from the accused was Ganja. ( 3 ) THE accused pleaded not guilty. The trial Court on the basis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution has held that the accused was found in possession of 5. 5 Kilogram of Ganja. ( 4 ) IN this appeal it is argued that two panch witnesses Chetan Mehra (P. W. 2) and Edvin (P. W. 3), have not supported the prosecution case and therefore on the basis of solitary evidence of the Police Officers, the appellant could not be convicted for the said offence. It is seen that the panch witnesses seldom support of prosecution case. The witnesses have admitted that the thumb mark were taken on the seizure memo. D. P. Sahu (P. W. 4) has deposed that he took the search of the house of the accused and found 5. 5 Kilogram of Ganja in three packets. His testimony has been corroborated by another Police Officer S. B S. Rana (P. W. 5 ). He prepared the seizure memo that is Ex. P. 7 He got the Ganja weighed by Shiv Kumar (P. W. 1) at the house of the accused. ( 5 ) THERE was proper compliance of the provision of Section 42 (l) of the Act. The appellant was given notice as per Ex. PS apprising him of his right to get the search made by a gazetted officer. The appellant preferred to get his house searched by the Police Officer who was present there. ( 5 ) THERE was proper compliance of the provision of Section 42 (l) of the Act. The appellant was given notice as per Ex. PS apprising him of his right to get the search made by a gazetted officer. The appellant preferred to get his house searched by the Police Officer who was present there. Even otherwise in a case of house search provision of Section 50 of the Act is not applicable. The conviction of the appellant is well founded. ( 6 ) SO far as the question of sentences is concerned, the appellant is in jail since 4-7-1997. In the opinion of this Court the period spent by him in jail is sufficient punishment for the crime which has been committed by him. Therefore the substantive jail sentence is reduced from rigorous imprisonment for two years to the period already undergone. The appellant will deposit the fine and in case of default he will undergo an additional imprisonment as directed by the trial Court. Appeal dismissed with modification in sentence. .