JUDGMENT:- This appeal is directed against Judgment of conviction and sentence rendered by learned Special Judge, Latur, in Special Case No.15 of 2003. By the impugned Judgment, appellant herein is convicted for offence punishable under Section 20(i)(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (For short, "the N.D.P.S. Act") and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1 (One) lac in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for two years. 2. The prosecution case, stated briefly, is that on 23.8.2003, P.S.I. Sharma, who was attached to City Police Station at Udgir, received secret information to the effect that one person was likely to arrive at S.T. stand, Udgir alongwith contraband "Ganga". He immediately sent a report to Superintendent of Police, Latur. He called panch witnesses and attempted to secure presence of Tahsildar as Gazetted Officer. Since the Tahsildar was out of town, he requested Medical Officer, Dr. Vibhute to remain present at the time of conducting the raid. They went to the S.T. bus stand and waited outside in expectation of arrival of the passenger about whom the confidential information was received. At about 2:00 p.m., they saw the appellant standing near platform No.1 of the S.T.bus stand. He was carrying two suit cases in his hands and one carry bag was hanging on his shoulder. P.S.I. Sharma and other members of the raiding party neared him. The search of the suit cases and the carry bag was carried out after giving him option to have search in presence of the Gazetted Officer, i.e. Dr. Vibhute. The suit cases and the carry bag were found to contain stock of "ganja". A trader was accompanying the raiding party alongwith weighing scale and weights. The stock of "ganja" in one suit case was of 8 kg., 400 gms., in another suit case 7 kg., 200 gms. and in the shoulder carry bag 4 kg., 700 gms. From each of the suit case and the shoulder bag, samples of "ganja" were collected and sealed packets thereof were prepared. The appellant was arrested and was rushed to the city Police Station after preparation of seizure panchnama. It is stated that P.S.1. Shri. Sharma followed subsequent procedure of sending a report of the seizure and arrest to his superior Officer and arranged to send the samples of "ganja" to the office of Chemical Analyser, Aurangabad. The appellant was arrested and was rushed to the city Police Station after preparation of seizure panchnama. It is stated that P.S.1. Shri. Sharma followed subsequent procedure of sending a report of the seizure and arrest to his superior Officer and arranged to send the samples of "ganja" to the office of Chemical Analyser, Aurangabad. Consequent upon completion of investigation. the appellant was charge-sheeted for commission of offence punishable under Section 20(1)(b) of the N.D.P.S.Act. 3. A charge was framed at Exh.6. The appellant entered plea of not guilty. His defence is one of simple denial. He asserted that false charge is foisted on him. 4. At the trial the prosecution examined in all five witnesses in support of its case. The prosecution relied upon various documents and, in particular, the seizure panchnama (Exh.15). The learned Special Judge held that the charge is duly proved. 5. Mr. Bharaswadkar learned Advocate for the appellant, would submit that the oral and documentary evidence shows that the samples examined by the Chemical Analyser contained greenish leaves and not only the fruiting tops or flowering tops. He argued that the flowering tops should have been segregated from pieces of greenish leaves and seeds. He contended that the seizure of greenish leaves cannot be made punishable in view of the definition of word "ganja" as used in Section 2(iii)(h) of the N.D.P.S. Act. He contended that in any event, the prosecution case is not acceptable inasmuch as no person is likely to carry such a huge stock of "ganja" in a public transport vehicle. He would point out that substantial part of the sentence is already undergone by the appellant. The learned Advocate seeks to rely on certain observations m "Madhukar s/o. Pandurang Kanthale Vs. The State of Maharashtra" (2002 ALL MR (Cri) 1381) and "Arjun Singh Vs. State of Haryana" (2005 Cri.L.J. 253). He urged, therefore to allow the appeal and acquit the appellant or alternatively to reduce the quantum of sentence. Per contra, learned APP Mr. Umakant Patil and Mrs. B. R. Khekale supports the impugned Judgment. 6. The following points need determination in this appeal: (I) Whether the appellant was found in conscious possession or stock of "Ganja" in the noon of 22.S.2003 at S.T. Stand, Udgir without having valid licence to possess the contraband narcotic substance? (ii) Whether the impugned Judgment and Order of sentence is legal, proper and correct ? 6. The following points need determination in this appeal: (I) Whether the appellant was found in conscious possession or stock of "Ganja" in the noon of 22.S.2003 at S.T. Stand, Udgir without having valid licence to possess the contraband narcotic substance? (ii) Whether the impugned Judgment and Order of sentence is legal, proper and correct ? I record affirmative finding on the first point and party affirmative finding on the second point for the reasons discussed hereinafter. 7. At the threshold, let it be noted that the alleged search and seizure is in respect of suit cases and carry bag found on person of the appellant. The legal position in this behalf may be considered. In "State of Rajasthan Vs. Daulatram" (2005) 7 Supreme Court Cases 36, the Apex Court held that search of a bag carried by the accused on his head could not be regarded as his personal search. And, therefore, it was held that Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act was not attracted in such a case, Needless to say. it was not necessary to give option to the accused/appellant for conducting of search in presence or a gazetted Officer. Similar view is expressed in "Ravindran Alias John Vs. Superintendent of Customs" (2007) 6 Supreme Court Cases 410 : [2007 ALL MR (Cri) 2965 (S.C.)] The Apex Court held that where arrest and seizure was made at bus-stand and not in any building, conveyance or enclosed place then Section 42 of the N.D.P.S. Act was not attracted. It was not required, therefore, that the information ought to be taken down in writing or that the Officer concerned must send a copy thereof to his immediate official superior within 72 hours. So also, it was held that Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act is not attracted in such a situation. Thus, plea of the accused that he was not informed of his legal right to get his personal search conducted in presence of a gazetted Officer or a Magistrate was held (not) sustainable. 8. PW-1-Shrikant is independent panch, He corroborates the case of prosecution. His version purports to show that he was called to attend the raid at the S.T.Stand, Udgir in the relevant noon. His version purports to show that the appellant was found standing at the S.T. Bus stand with two suit cases in his hands and one carry bag hanging on his shoulder. His version purports to show that he was called to attend the raid at the S.T.Stand, Udgir in the relevant noon. His version purports to show that the appellant was found standing at the S.T. Bus stand with two suit cases in his hands and one carry bag hanging on his shoulder. He corroborates the search and seizure of the "ganja" from the suit cases and the carry bag. His version shows that both the suit cases and the carry bag were found to contain greenish leaves. He testified that samples were collected from the suit cases and the carry bag and the sample packets were sealed in his presence. He signed the seizure panchnama (Exh.15) after the procedure was completed. Nothing of much importance could be gathered from his cross-examination. His version reveals that the appellant was spotted for the first time at a distance of few paces from STD booth. There is no reason for PW-Shrikant to speak lie. The prosecution case is further corroborated by PW-Shivaji. He is an independent witness. He was called to attend the search and seizure alongwith weighing scale and weights. His version reveals that the appellant was found standing at the ST Bus stand with two suit cases in his both hands and a shoulder bag. His version shows that greenish leaves were found in the suit cases and the shoulder bag. He weighed the stock of greenish leaves found in each of the suit case and the shoulder bag. separately, with the help of the weighing scale and the weights, which he had carried with him. In his presence, the samples of "ganja" were collected and separately scaled in three cotton bags, His version reveals that the appellant was standing on platform of the S.T. Bus stand when the Police party, including the panchas and himself spotted him. His cross-examination could not bring anything on surface so as to dislodge his version. 9. The version of PW-3 P.S.I. Sharma reveals that he had received secret information to the effect that one person was likely to arrive at S.T. bus stand, Udgir with "ganja" in his possession. He. therefore informed about his intention to carry out the raid to the Superintendent of Police vide letter (Exh,18i. 9. The version of PW-3 P.S.I. Sharma reveals that he had received secret information to the effect that one person was likely to arrive at S.T. bus stand, Udgir with "ganja" in his possession. He. therefore informed about his intention to carry out the raid to the Superintendent of Police vide letter (Exh,18i. He took entry in the station diary, He states that he had called panchas and Medical Officer, Smt. Vibhute to attend the raid, His version purports to show that the appellant was found in possession of the two suit cases and the shoulder bag containing "ganja", He narrated as to how the search was conducted in presence of the panchas and the gazetted Officer. He corroborates the recitals of the ELK (Exh.20), His version further shows that the sealed sample packets were deposited at the Police Station and investigation was given to A.P.L, Shri. Murkute. He sent report about the search and seizure to the Superintendent of Police under his signature (Exh.23), Thus, he took the necessary precaution while conducting the search and seizure. He followed the necessary provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act. His cross-examination also docs not bring about any material so as to disbelieve case or the prosecution. 10. The evidence of PW-4 - Suresh reveals that he carried the sample packets of "ganja" to office of Chemical Analyses on 25.8.2003 and delivered the same in the concerned office, His version is corroborated by recitals of the forwarding letter (Exh.2G) and the endorsement of the concerned Clerk of the Chemical Analyser's office, PW-5 – A.P.I. Murkute gave account regarding further investigation, which was carried out by him. The recitals of report (Exh.28) would show that the three samples, which were analysed by the Chemical Analyser, were found to contain greenish flowering tops, pieces of greenish leaves, seeds and stalks, The report shows that the samples were of "ganja", which foil within definition provided by Section 2(iii)(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act. 11, In "Madhukar s/o. Pandurang Kanthale Vs. The State of Maharashtra" (supra), the question for consideration was whether "Bhang" is a narcotic drug or psychotropic substance, A Single Bench of this Court held that "Bhang" is not covered by the definition of cannabis (hemp) as it is specifically excluded from the definition of Ganja, This authority is hardly of 3ny assistance to the case of the appellant. The State of Maharashtra" (supra), the question for consideration was whether "Bhang" is a narcotic drug or psychotropic substance, A Single Bench of this Court held that "Bhang" is not covered by the definition of cannabis (hemp) as it is specifically excluded from the definition of Ganja, This authority is hardly of 3ny assistance to the case of the appellant. So also, case of "Arjun Singh Vs, State of Haryana" (supra) deals with seizure of "Bhang", It is well settled that "Bhang" is not narcotic drug or psychotropic substance within the meaning of the N.D.P.S. Act. 12. It is true that definition of the word "ganja" implies the flowering tops, However, the definition by itself does not exclude the green leaves when they are accompanied by the flowering tops or fruiting tops of cannabis plant. The definition may be reproduced as follows: "2.Definitions, - In this Act unless the context otherwise requires - (i) x x x x (ii) X X X X (iii) cannabis (hemp) means - (a) x x x x (b) ganja, that is, the flowering or fruiting tops of the cannabis plant (excluding the seeds and leaves when not accompanied by the tops), by whatever name they may be known or designated : (c) x x x x A bare reading of the above definition would make it manifest that the seeds and the leaves are excluded from the operation of the definition of word "ganja" only when the same are not accompanied by the flowering tops or the fruiting tops. The report of the C.A. reveals that greenish flowering tops and pieces of greenish leaves, seeds and stalks were noticed at the time of analysis. Thus, when the leaves and seeds were accompanied by the fruiting tops then it will have to be said that the seized stock was of ganja. 13. Considering the foregoing reasons, I have no hesitation in holding that the impugned Judgment is quite sustainable in so far as conviction of the appellant is concerned. There appears no serious infirmity committed by the learned Special Judge while appreciating the evidence. The learned Special Judge duly considered the fact that the appellant is young person and, therefore, the minimum sentence provided for possession of the commercial quantity is awarded. The learned Special Judge, however, directed the appellant to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years, in default of payment of fine. The learned Special Judge duly considered the fact that the appellant is young person and, therefore, the minimum sentence provided for possession of the commercial quantity is awarded. The learned Special Judge, however, directed the appellant to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years, in default of payment of fine. The appellant is young person aged about 21 years. Though an amount of payment of fine of Rs.1 (One) lac, which is minimum as specified in Section 20 cannot be reduced in view of the legislative mandate, ends of justice would be met if the order that, in default of payment of fine of Rs.1 (One) lac, the appellant shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months is directed instead of rigorous imprisonment for three years. I am fortified in my above view by dictum in "Shantilal Vs. State of M.P." (2007 AIR SCW6494). 14. In the result, the appeal is dismissed to the extent of order of conviction and sentence but the direction to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years in default of payment of fine, is set aside and instead, the appellant is directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months in default of the payment of fine of Rs.1 (One) lac. Order accordingly.