JUDGMENT Arun Kumar Goel, J.—We have heard learned Counsel for the parties in this case, and with their assistance have also examined the record of the trial Court. 2. Appellant was found guilty for having committed offence under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the "NDPS Act"). He was sentenced to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs. one lakh. In default of payment whereof he has been directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three years. Appellant has challenged this judgment passed by the Sessions Judge, Solan in case No. 17-S/7 of 2000, dated 21.4.2001. 3. Mr. Rakesh Jaswal, learned Counsel for appellant submitted that looking to the over all facts and circumstances of this case and assuming everything against his client, without either admitting or conceding, still there is no legally acceptable evidence brought on record by the prosecution so as to sustain the impugned judgment. Per him this being a case of prior information, violation of Sections 42 and 50 of the Act is writ large. This by itself is a sufficient ground to allow this appeal and consequently acquitting the appellant. 4. With a view to support his clients case, Mr. Jaswal criticised the investigation undertaken by PW-5 ASI Ravinder Lai and memos alleged to have been prepared by him at the spot in presence of PW-1 Shammi Kaushal and Devi Roop. He challenged the so called process of re-sealing by S.I. Achharpal Singh (PW-7). Per him when the entire prosecution case is critically analysed, it does not lead to one and only irresistible conclusion pointing to the guilt of the appellant. 5. All these pleas were controverted by Mr. D.S. Nainta, learned Deputy Advocate General. He submitted that the evidence of the prosecution oral, as well as documentary is fool proof and conviction of the appellant needs to be upheld. According to him, there is no violation of any provisions of the Act much less Sections 42 and 50. He submitted^that the appellant has been found to be in conscious possession of the contraband, when he was searched on 6.3.2000 by PW-5 ASI Virender Kumar, CIA Staff, Solan at Oachghat. 6. With a view to properly appreciate the respective submissions, it is necessary to examine the prosecution evidence produced in this case. 7. He submitted^that the appellant has been found to be in conscious possession of the contraband, when he was searched on 6.3.2000 by PW-5 ASI Virender Kumar, CIA Staff, Solan at Oachghat. 6. With a view to properly appreciate the respective submissions, it is necessary to examine the prosecution evidence produced in this case. 7. Virender Kumar, ASI (PW-5) received information on 6.3.2000 to the effect that one lame person known as Garg was selling Charas as a matter of habit. This information was received by him at Oachghatwide Ext. PE, Information as required under law was sent to Superintendent of Police, Solan through Constable Ajay Kumar. Thereafter he joined two independent witnesses, namely, Shri Shammi Kaushal (PW-1) and Devi Roop. Both of them were present near liquor vend. They saw a lame person. He was coming from Oachghat to Jatoli. 8. On having been stopped, this person disclosed his name as Hem Chand. PW-5 disclosed his identity to this person (Hem Chand), and informed him that it was intended to search him. In case appellant wants, he may search the raiding party. At such time, appellant was further told that whether he would like to be searched by a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate. Appellant exercised his option to be searched by this witness i.e. PW-5, as per endorsement Ext. PA/A made on Ext. PA. Thereafter vide Ext. PB all the members of the raiding party gave their search to the appellant. Exts. PA and PB were witnessed by PW 1 and Devi Roop. 9. Search of the appellant was then taken up by PW-5. It was found during such search that under the belt put up by the appellant on his pant inside the jacket and shirt, a polythene envelop containing another envelop was hidden. Something of black in the shape of ball and stick was in the envelop. Weights and measure had been requisitioned from Devi Roop. On being weighed, recovered material was found to be 450 grams Charas. Out of it, two samples weighing 10 grams each were drawn. These were put in two empty match boxes and then were sealed in a packet in white cloth. These samples were marked as Mark I and Mark II. Remaining 430 grams Charas was also sealed in a cover with two envelops. All these packets were sealed with seal "K". Out of it, two samples weighing 10 grams each were drawn. These were put in two empty match boxes and then were sealed in a packet in white cloth. These samples were marked as Mark I and Mark II. Remaining 430 grams Charas was also sealed in a cover with two envelops. All these packets were sealed with seal "K". Two samples had six seals each, whereas the third had nine seals. Impression "K" of the seal was also retained separately. Memo in this behalf Ext. PC was prepared. After having delivered the seal to Devi Roop, receipt Ext. PD was obtained from him. 10. Ruqua Ext. PG was sent by PW-5 to Police Station, Solan for registration of case. Consequently FIR Ext. PJ was registered. ASI, Sher Singh (PW-6) who was then posted at Police Station, Solan on receipt of Ext. PG got recorded FIR Ext. PJ. He came to the spot with the FIR and took over the case property vide inventory Ext. PH and proceeded further with the investigation of this case. He prepared spot map Ext. PK and gave information regarding arrest of the appellant to his wife Sharda Devi vide Ext. PL. Then PW-6 came to the Police Station. It is he who had sent special report, Ext. PF to the Superintendent of Police through S.H.O. Solan on 7.3.2000. Whereas Ext. PE was sent by PW-5. He handed over the case property to S.H.O. Achhar Pal Singh (PW-7) at the Police Station. 11. This witness i.e. PW-7 prepared certificate regarding production of contraband as well as its being repacked (Ext. PM). According to this witness, PW-6 ASI Sher Singh, ASI produced two samples of Charas marked as S and S2 each having six seals of "K" and one parcel of remaining Charas having nine seals also of impression "K". This witness re-packed and resealed this material and kept it in the Malkhana under his safe custody. Entries were also made to this effect in the register of Malkhana on 7.3.2000. Samples were sent to the C.T.L. Kandaghat for chemical analysis on 7.3.2000. On receipt of the report from this laboratory vide Ext. PN, PW-7 prepared the challan and filed it in the court. 12. Entries were also made to this effect in the register of Malkhana on 7.3.2000. Samples were sent to the C.T.L. Kandaghat for chemical analysis on 7.3.2000. On receipt of the report from this laboratory vide Ext. PN, PW-7 prepared the challan and filed it in the court. 12. Trial Court after hearing the parties as well on the basis of the material before it was.prima facie of the view that there is enough material to frame charge sheet against the appellant and framed charges against the appellant on 26.7.2000 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. He has been convicted as above on the basis of the evidence on record, hence this appeal. 13. Appellant filed this appeal through jail. Since he was unrepresented, he had applied for grant of legal aid. He was provided legal aid vide order dated 26.3.2002 when this appeal was admitted. 14. So far recovery of contraband from the appellant is concerned, after examining the evidence on record, we are fully satisfied that it is duly proved as envisaged under law and no exception can be taken to it. In this behalf statement of PW-1 is quite clear. He is an independent person who was associated with the investigation in this case. Ext. PE after its receipt on 6.3.2000 in the office of Superintendent of Police, Solan, is diarised on the same day there. PW-1 as well as one Devi Roop were joined at Oachghat as independent witnesses. When a reference is made to the statement of PW-1, we find no reason why it should not be accepted. Nothing has been attributed much less extracted in his cross examination so as to compel this Court not to accept the same. This fact coupled with the statement of official witnesses, ASI Virender Kumar (PW-5), Sher Singh, ASI (PW-6) and Achhar Pal Singh, SI, SHO, Police Station, Solan (PW-7), we find that there is adequate and proper compliance with the provisions of Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act. As such plea raised by Mr. Jaswal has no merit and the same is rejected. 15. Mr. Jaswal also submitted that this case has been foisted by the police in connivance with the in-laws of the appellant. We find that this plea is purely an after thought. As such plea raised by Mr. Jaswal has no merit and the same is rejected. 15. Mr. Jaswal also submitted that this case has been foisted by the police in connivance with the in-laws of the appellant. We find that this plea is purely an after thought. It may be appropriate to notice that the appellant had produced two DWs with a view to establish that he has been falsely implicated in this case. 16. These are Surinder Pal (DW-1) and Keshav Ram (DW-2). Both of them have tried to show that the appellant was a driver on the vehicle of Mathura Dass. DW-1 had come to village Maryog with a view to collect payment of Milk Chilling Plant when the appellant reached there to receive money from Satya Devi. At such time, Keshav Ram (DW-2) was also other. Police having arrived at there, whisked away the appellant at about 12.30 p.m. No search or recovery was undertaken in the presence of DW-1. He was a member of Block Development Committee, Rajgarh. In his cross-examination, he stated that the appellant did not protest against his being arrested or whisked away by the police. DW-1 was not aware whether the police had come from Solan or elsewhere, but it had come in a Maruti Van. It was a private vehicle and he was not aware of the identity of police personnel. He further stated that none came to apprise him of the facts deposed. He further stated that he was not knowing the Court as "Sessions Judge". 17. Similarly, Keshav Ram (DW-2) stated that he knew the appellant for the last two years. He was operating a truck and used to get vegetable consignment from him. On the fateful day, he was sitting in the shop of Satya Devi. Appellant had come there to collect money from Satya Devi. Surinder Pal (DW-1) wasalso sitting there since he had to collect payment of Milk Chilling Plant. Police came and whisked away the appellant. He was not searched in the presence of DWs. Appellant was not carrying a bag. In cross examination, he stated that the police had come in a Maruti Van. He did not know the number of the van. He had not noted the date of occurrence anywhere. He did not ask either the police or the appellant as to why the police had whisked away the appellant. Appellant was not carrying a bag. In cross examination, he stated that the police had come in a Maruti Van. He did not know the number of the van. He had not noted the date of occurrence anywhere. He did not ask either the police or the appellant as to why the police had whisked away the appellant. He could not identify the police officials. 18. When a reference is made to the entire prosecution evidence, it is clear that there is no suggestion given to the effect that this case has been got foisted on the appellant at the instance of his in-laws. When a reference is made to Ext. PL, it is clear that the appellant when informed vide this memo regarding the grounds of his arrest, wanted his friend Tara Chand living near hospital at Rajgarh and his wife Sharda Devi to be informed. There is endorsement on this document i.e. Ext. PL by his wife that she had in fact been informed. In addition to this, neither to PW-1 nor PWs 5 and 6 any suggestion was given that they had conspired with his in-laws to falsely implicate the appellant. In these circumstances on reappraisal of the whole case, plea urged on behalf of the appellant is hereby rejected. 19. Another plea in the alternative that was urged by Mr. Jaswal needs to be noted. According to him, looking to the quantity of the contraband that was allegedly recovered from the appellant, it is evident that it is in excess of small quantity, but is less than commercial quantity within the meaning of Section 2 (xxiiia) and Section 2(viia), respectively of the NDPS Act as amended by Central Act No. 9 of 2001, as also keeping in view the purpose and intention of enacting these provisions, he submitted that his client needs to be given a chance by modifying the substantive sentence to the period already undergone and also by reducing the fine, so that he is in a position to get into the rrfain stream of society. Further, according to him, this prayer needs to be favourably considered looking to the present trend of penology, which is towards reforming an accused person like the appellant so as to make him a civilised and law-abiding citizen. 20. This plea was contested by Mr. Nainta. Further, according to him, this prayer needs to be favourably considered looking to the present trend of penology, which is towards reforming an accused person like the appellant so as to make him a civilised and law-abiding citizen. 20. This plea was contested by Mr. Nainta. He submitted that this is a fool proof case on the basis of evidence on record. Severe punishment needs to be inflicted so as to act as a deterrent measure to others, so that they do not indulge into commission of such offences. According to him, the drug menace is eating into the foundation of our society when people of tender/young age, students and the like are allured to drug addition. Thus, according to him, appellant is not entitled to any indulgence. Although he did not dispute that the quantity of contraband was more than small quantity, but was less than commercial quantity. 21. Looking to the evidence of the prosecution, quantity of the contraband recovered and also the fact that the appellant is a lame person, and keeping in view the decision of this Court in Tom Marshal v. State of H.R, 2003 (1) Shimla Law Cases 433, we feel that the sentence imposed upon the appellant needs to be reduced from ten years to the period already undergone. In this behalf it may be noticed that the learned Counsel for the parties at the time of hearing were not at variance that from 6.3.2000, i.e. the date of his arrest till date, appellant continues to be in custody. This is an additional ground to reduce the sentence. So far payment of fine is concerned, we feel that the same also needs to be reduced in the background as noted hereinabove and it is ordered that instead of Rs. one lakh, appellant shall pay a fine of Rs. 20,000. In default of payment of fine, he is directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. While upholding the conviction of the appellant, sentence as imposed by the trial Court is modified to the one as mentioned hereinabove, this appeal is finally disposed of. Appeal disposed of.