ORDER : N. Santosh Hegde, J. - The appellant was convicted for an offence punishable under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, by the Sessions Judge, Rajkot and was sentenced to undergo 10 years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. one lakh in default of which, further to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year. The said conviction and sentence has been affirmed by the High Court of Gujarat and hence he is in appeal before us. 2. It is the prosecution case that on 14-6-1998 at about 1 p.m. PW1, the Police Inspector received information that the appellant was selling brown sugar near New Kankai Hotel. On the receipt of the said information he sent a report to Police Control Room, Rajkot and made the necessary entry in the station diary and proceeded to the place where the appellant was allegedly selling brown sugar. On identifying the appellant therein he informed the appellant that he was going to search his person, therefore, in law if he wanted that the search should be by a gazetted officer or by a Magistrate as required under Section 50, same will be arranged, but he refused such offer and agreed to be searched by PW1 and on such search of the appellant it was found that he was carrying 2.200 gm of brown sugar, packed and kept in fifty- nine separate packets. PW1 also found in his possession Rs. 1700 in cash. He seized the narcotic drugs and also the cash found on the person of the accused and made panchnama of the same and sent the sample for chemical examination and on being found that the seized brown sugar did contain the prohibited substance, the petitioner was charged for offence punishable under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act as stated above. 3. Ms Sharda Devi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that none of the independent witnesses has supported the prosecution case. Therefore it is not safe to accept the prosecution case. We have examined the record and we have no hesitation in rejecting this contention raised on behalf of the appellant as has been done by the two courts below. 4. Therefore it is not safe to accept the prosecution case. We have examined the record and we have no hesitation in rejecting this contention raised on behalf of the appellant as has been done by the two courts below. 4. She then contended that even according to the prosecution, what was seized from the person of the appellant, was only 2.200 gm of brown sugar, which, according to the relevant notification applicable at that point of time, would be a quantity less than 5 gm which would indicate that the said brown sugar, if at all seized should be one kept for the appellant's personal consumption. For this purpose she relied on Section 27 of the Act and contended that under Section 27(a) the appellant's sentence can only be for a period not exceeding one year. We have perused the said section and we notice under Section 27(a) of the Act that if the seized psychotropic substance is less than 5 gm, in the case of brown sugar, and the same is proved to have been kept by the accused for his personal consumption then the sentence would be only for one year. The condition precedent for applying this provision of law is that the seized goods should be proved by the appellant that he had kept the same for his personal consumption and not for sale. In the instant case, it is argued on behalf of the appellant that from the quantity seized itself shows that the substance in question was kept for his personal consumption and not for sale. Therefore there is no need for further proof that the same is kept for personal consumption. We are unable to accept this argument because we find that though the quantity seized is a small quantity of 2.200 gm and the same was packed and kept in fifty-nine separate packets, which itself indicates that the said quantity of psychotropic substance was not kept by the appellant for his personal consumption but was obviously kept for sale. The factum of recovery of Rs. 1700 in cash from the possession of the appellant also supports this inference of ours. 5. For the reasons stated above, we are unable to accept the arguments of the appellant. 6. Appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.