JUDGMENT : Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J. Lekh Ram Appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'the Accused) has filed this appeal against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 17.10.2002 passed by learned Special Judge, Solan in Case No. 5-S/7 of 2000 under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (for short NDPS Act). He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 100.000/- (Rs. One lac) failing which he was to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years. 2. The prosecution case against the accused is that on 11.12.1999, Shri Rakesli Aggrawal (PW-8) Superintendent of Police, Solan received telephonically secret information that the accused is dealing in the business of contraband. He passed on I the said information to Deputy inspector General of Police, Shimla his superior immediate officer on the same day. PW-8 formed a raiding party consisting of himself, Head Constable Vijay Kumar (PW-3), constable Narender, constable Ajay 4 Kumar and constable Sita Ram. Independent witnesses, namely Puran Chand (PW-1), Pradeep Kumar and Sanjay Negi were also associated by PW-8 in the raiding party. The raiding party' proceeded to Jaunaji road, Solar. The accused was found present at the spot wearing Pathani suit of maroon colour and a jacket of green colour. PW-8 disclosed his identity to the accused. He disclosed the reasons of belief of his conducting the personal search of the accused at the spot and served a notice Ext. PW-1/A under Section 50 of the NDPS Act to the accused asking him to give an option if the accused wanted to be searched by him in the capacity of Authorised Officer or to be searched before a Magistrate or any other gazetted officer. The accused expressed his consent vide option marked as Ext. PW-8/A to be searched on PW-8. PW-8 and other members of the raiding party gave their personal search to the accused, vide memo Ext. PW-1/B. No incriminating article was found in their possession. On personal search of the accused, PW-8 found a gunny bag concealed under one of the armpits covered by a jacket. In the said gunny bag Ext. P-2 there was another wrapper of gunny bag Ext. P-3 which contained 'Charas' in the shape of small balls. The recovered /Charas/ was taken into possession. On personal search of the accused, PW-8 found a gunny bag concealed under one of the armpits covered by a jacket. In the said gunny bag Ext. P-2 there was another wrapper of gunny bag Ext. P-3 which contained 'Charas' in the shape of small balls. The recovered /Charas/ was taken into possession. Constable Ajay Kumar summoned Kamal Dutt (PW-2) who is running a shop at Jaunaji road Solan and brought scale for weighment. On weighment, 'charas' was found to be 1 Kg. 750 grams. Two samples of 25 grams each were drawn and remaining samples were wrapped, seized and sealed with seal impression 'I.'. Panchanama Ext. PW-1/B was prepared. Seal 'L' after use was entrusted to PW-1. Rukka Ext. PW-8/B prepared on the spot was sent to the Police Station through constable Ajay Kumar for registration of formal First Information Report. Inspector Achhar Pal Singh (PW-7) SHO, Police Station, Solan recorded FIR Ext. PW-7 also reached at the spot who took further investigation of the case from PW-8. PW-7 prepared site plan Ext. PW-7/2 and arrested the accused. He sent Special Report Ext. PW-7/4 prepared under section 57 of the NDPS Act to Superintendent of Police, Solan. Sealed parcel of samples and seized 'charas' were resealed by PW-7 with his seal impression 'B' and deposited them with MHC Mast Ram PW-6. On 13.12.1999, PW-5 handed over one sealed sample parcel to constable Jeet Singh PW-5 who deposited the sample parcel in Chemical Laboratory/ at Kandaghat on the same day for examination. On receipt of the report of Chemical Examiner Ext. PW-7/5, PW-7 submitted a charge-sheet against the accused for the commission of the offence punishable under section 20 of the NDPS' Act. The accused came to be tried by the learned trial Judge. 3. To prove its case against the accused, the prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses. In his statement under Section 313 Cr. P.O., the accused denied the prosecution case as a Whole. He pleaded that the prosecution witnesses have deposed falsely against him. However, one defence witness Megh Ram has been examined by him who has only stated that the accused is working as labourer with him and he is a good man. In his statement under Section 313 Cr. P.O., the accused denied the prosecution case as a Whole. He pleaded that the prosecution witnesses have deposed falsely against him. However, one defence witness Megh Ram has been examined by him who has only stated that the accused is working as labourer with him and he is a good man. 4 The learned Special Judge upon consideration of the evidence led before him, found the accused guilty of the commission of the offence under section 20 of the NDPS Act and accordingly convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the accused and the learned Addl. Advocate General for the State and have also gone through the record of the case. 6. The learned counsel for the accused has assailed the impugned conviction and sentence inter-alia on the grounds that the learned Special Judge has failed to appreciate the evidence of the prosecution in its proper perspective and the alleged recovery of 'charas' has been manufactured by the Investigating Agency against the accused. He next contended that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt to the accused beyond reasonable doubt and his conviction has been recorded by learned Special Judge on surmises and conjectures 7. Per contra, the learned Addl. Advocate General supported the judgment and order of the learned trial Court. 8. We have given our anxious and thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties. 9. Personal search of the accused has been conducted by District Police Chief (S.P.), Solan in the presence of independent witnesses PW-1, PW-3 head constable Vijay Kumar and other police officials on the spot. 'Charas' weighing 1 Kg. 750 grams was recovered from double layer of gunny bags concealed by the accused under one of his armpit. PW-8 prepared Panchanama Ext. PW-1 on the spot. The consent of the accused was obtained, vide memo Ext. PW-8/A in the presence of PW-1. The accused vide statement Ext. PW-8/A gave his consent to be searched by PW-8, Copy of the information Ext. PW-8/C was sent by PW-8 to Dy. Inspector General of Police, Shimla his superior immediate officer immediately after receipt of the secret information by him. Two samples of 25 grams each were drawn out of the seized samples and the remaining samples were wrapped and sealed with seal impression 'L'. PW-8/C was sent by PW-8 to Dy. Inspector General of Police, Shimla his superior immediate officer immediately after receipt of the secret information by him. Two samples of 25 grams each were drawn out of the seized samples and the remaining samples were wrapped and sealed with seal impression 'L'. PW-7 recorded the First Information Report Ext. PW-7/1 on receipt of rukka. The accused was arrested by PW-7 at the spot and recorded the statements of the witnesses. PLW-7 prepared the site map and submitted the Special report under Section 57 of the NDPS Act Ext. PW-7/4 to the Superintendent of Police, Solan. The Special report was forwarded to DIG/SR for information on the same day, as per endorsement Ext. PW-4/2. 10. PW-1 the independent witness has corroborated the testimony of PW-7. and PW-8. He deposed that on the personal search of the accused 1 Kg. 750 grays 'charas' was recovered from his possession wrapped in a piece of gunny bag being carried by him under his left shoulder concealed under the jacket. The recovery of the 'charas' from the possession of the accused has also been supported by PW-3 Head Constable Vijay Kumar. The accused has not shattered the testimony of PW-: 1, PW-3, PW-7 and PW-8 in the cross-examination. The Investigating Officer has complied with the provisions of law in conducting the search and investigation. They have linked the entire chain. 11. It is the evidence of PW-6 that on 11.12.1999 PW-7 Inspector Achharpal Singh deposited three sealed packets of contraband with him which are resealed with seal impression 'B'. On 13.12.1999 he handed over one sample parcel to PW-51 constable Jeet Singh who deposited the same parcel in Chemical laboratory Kandaghat for examination. Both PW-5 and PW-6 have categorically stated that the sample packets remained in their safe custody without being tampered with by L anyone. On analysis of the sample, the Chemical Examiner found the sample to be that of 'charas'. The Chemical Examiner in his report Ext. PW-7/5 has certified that the seals found on the sealed packets were found intact and unbroken. Therefore, the prosecution has proved that the contraband recovered from the possession of I the accused was charas'. 12. On careful scrutiny of the entire evidence as discussed above, the prosecution has led cogent, trust-worthy and convincing link evidence to prove the charge against the accused. Therefore, the prosecution has proved that the contraband recovered from the possession of I the accused was charas'. 12. On careful scrutiny of the entire evidence as discussed above, the prosecution has led cogent, trust-worthy and convincing link evidence to prove the charge against the accused. We find no good reason to differ with the reasoning recorded by learned trial Court and the conclusion arrived at by it. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the accused cannot be accepted. 13. In the result, the conviction of the accused for an offence under section 20 of the NDPS Act is maintained. However, taking into consideration the quantity of charas', the accused was of 30 years of age on 5.7.2000 when his statement was recorded by the learned trial Court under section 313 Cr. P.C. and the statement of DW-1 Megh Ram that before the arrest of the accused by the police, he was working as labourer, we are of the view, that the sentence of 15 years imposed by the learned Special Judge upon the accused is excessive and harsh. We, accordingly sentenced the accused to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. One lac) is kept intact. In default of payment of fine the accused shall undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 6 months instead of R.1. 2 years imposed by the learned trial Court. The appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicate above. The case property shall be dealt with as ordered/directed by the learned trial Court.