Judgment Shyam Kishore Sharma, J. 1. The above appeals have arisen out of a common judgment as such they have been heard together and are being disposed by this common judgment. 2. The above appellants have preferred these appeals against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 19.6.1993 passed by the Sessions Judge, Bhojpur, Ara in N.D.P.S. Case No. 50 of 1992 whereby the appellants were convicted for the offence under Sections 20(b)(1) of the N.D.P.S. Act for which they were sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- each and in default to undergo further R.I. for three months. No separate sentence has been passed against them for the offence under Sec. 47A of the Excise Act. 3. According to the prosecution case on 16.9.1992 at about noon S.N. Uraon PW 7 the Officer In Charge of Ara Town Police Station organized a raiding cum patrolling party consisting of S. Is. Akhilendra Kumar Singh, Rabi shankar Prasad, A.S.Is. S.N. Pd. and Amarnath Singh. After raiding different places the raiding party reached near the line hotel of one Gopoal Rai where three persons with a VIP suit case were getting down from a bus. At that time the police party was on a jeep bearing No. BR-3-2590. One person was standing with scooter No. BR3-3512. At the sight of police party the accused persons tried to escape away with the scooter. Three persons succeeded in escaping but one was left there with VIP suit case. The raiding party caught him who disclosed his name as Uttam Mandal. He disclosed the name of other persons who have succeeded in escaping. Those persons were caught on the road near the residence of Sessions Judge, Bhojpur. They disclosed their name as Bir Bahadur Pandey, Manoj Kumar Singh and Ashok Kumar Mishra. The suit case was seized and searched which contains approximately 10 Kg. Ganja. The accused persons were smuggler who used to bring Ganja for selling the same. The case was registered. After investigation charge sheet was submitted. Cognizance was taken. 4. The prosecution has examined altogether 8 witnesses in support of its case. PW 1 Ashok Kumar Rai, PW 2 Rabi Sahanker Prasad S.I., PW 3 Gopaljee Singh owner of the line hotel where the alleged scooter was noticed, PW 4 Satyanarain Pd. The case was registered. After investigation charge sheet was submitted. Cognizance was taken. 4. The prosecution has examined altogether 8 witnesses in support of its case. PW 1 Ashok Kumar Rai, PW 2 Rabi Sahanker Prasad S.I., PW 3 Gopaljee Singh owner of the line hotel where the alleged scooter was noticed, PW 4 Satyanarain Pd. ASI, PW 5 Sitaram Singh Yadav, PW 6 I.O. Akhilendra Kumar Singh, PW 7 the informant Sukhnath Uraon and PW 8 ASI Amarnath Singh. PW 1, 3 and 5 were declared hostile as they did not support the prosecution case. PW 4 and 8 were tendered by the prosecution. The remaining witnesses PW 2 6 and 7 have supported the prosecution case. PW 2 in his evidence has stated that he was the member of the raiding party. He has stated that the raiding cum patrolling party reached near the by-pass road where three persons got down from the bus there was a attachee with them. Three persons tried to run away on the scooter but one; was apprehended on the spot who disclosed his name as Uttam Mandal from whose possession the suit case containing Ganja was recovered. The defence has given a number of suggestions in cross, examination so that his testimony should be discreted by suggesting different questions but he remained intact that on the date and time of occurrence there was a raiding party which made seizure of ganja from Uttam Mandal. The other accused persons were apprehended simultaneously after chase. PW 7 is the informant. He in his evidence given similar version that of PW 2 that on the date and time of occurrence some persons got down from the bus and one person was apprehended containing Ganaja and three persons succeeded in escaping but on chase they were caught and the ganja was seized. PW 6 is the I.O. who has stated that a raiding party was organized who reached near the hotel of Gopal Singh where three persons got down from the bus. They were having one suit case. One person was awaiting from the scooter. He tried to escape. He was chased and other persons succeeded in escaping ultimately on chase they were apprehended and the seizure list was prepared. 5. Prosecution has proved FIR (Ext-2), signature of the Officer In Charge (Ext-2/1), formal FIR (Ext-3) and seizure list (Ext-4). They were having one suit case. One person was awaiting from the scooter. He tried to escape. He was chased and other persons succeeded in escaping ultimately on chase they were apprehended and the seizure list was prepared. 5. Prosecution has proved FIR (Ext-2), signature of the Officer In Charge (Ext-2/1), formal FIR (Ext-3) and seizure list (Ext-4). The attachee containing Ganja has been marked as Material Ext-1 and the signature of the seizure list witnesses marked as Ext 1/2 and 1/1. 6. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and independent witnesses have been declared hostile and even the members of the raiding party were declared tendered by the prosecution, therefore, the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. 7. This is a case in which recovery was made. It appears that the witness No. 6 was recalled for his evidence and in cross examined on behalf of the appellant Uttam Mandal this witness was asked to show the contents of the attachee upon which the witness opened the attachee and the court has noted that it was the Ganja. Therefore, search and seizure on the date and time of occurrence was proved beyond all reasonable doubt. It has also been proved that the seized article was ganja which was a narcotics drugs and accordingly, the Court came to the finding that on the date and time of occurrence Ganja was seized from persons of the appellants. 8. I am also of the view that the prosecution has been able to prove its charge that on the date and time of occurrence the appellants were in possession of Ganja which is a narcotics drugs so the conviction is correct. 9. However, it has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that the appellants Bir Bahadur Pandy, Manoj Kumar Singh and Ashok Kumar Singh were not arrested on the spot they were later on arrested and no recovery was made from their possession. They have remained in custody during trial for about one month. On behalf of the appellant Uttam Mandal it has been submitted that he was taken into custody on the date and time of occurrence i.e. 17.9.1992 and he was granted bail after 11 months. They have remained in custody during trial for about one month. On behalf of the appellant Uttam Mandal it has been submitted that he was taken into custody on the date and time of occurrence i.e. 17.9.1992 and he was granted bail after 11 months. So he has remained in custody for 11 months and no previous conviction has been brought on the record so sentences should be modified for the ends of justice. Learned APP has not opposed the prayer made on behalf of the appellants. 10. I have considered the submission of both the parties. The offence relates to recovery of Narcotic Drugs which is which is a serious offence but no previous conviction has been proved against any of the appellants so, in my view the sentences should be modified and accordingly it is modified to the extent that the period undergone by the appellants in course of trial and investigation shall be deemed to be sufficient for the ends of justice. In the result the above appeals are dismissed with the modification in the sentence.