JUDGMENT Sham Sunder, J 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 7.5.2005, and the order of sentence dated 9.5.2005, rendered by the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Fatehabad, vide which it convicted the accused (now appellant), for the offence, punishable under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter called as 'the Act' only) and sentenced him, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years, and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, and, in default of payment of the same, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months, for having been found in possession of 40 kgs. poppy-husk, without any permit or licence. 2. The facts, in brief, are that on 31.3.2001, Vijay Singh, SI/SHO, Police Station Ratia, was present at Bus Stand, Sardare Wala, in a Government Jeep, bearing registration No.HR22-3809, in connection with patrol duty, and crime checking. At that time, a secret information was received by him, that Maluk Singh, accused, had gone towards the fields with a gunny bag of poppy-husk, and if a raid was conducted, he could be caught red-handed. On receipt of secret information, a raiding party was formed. Thereafter, the raiding party reached the place, disclosed by the informer. A person was standing with a bag, on his head, who on seeing the police party threw away the same, on the ground. He was over-powered, on suspicion. He disclosed his identity as Maluk Singh S/o Gur Bachan. Search of the bag, in the presence of Shiv Charan, DSP, who was called to the spot, by sending a message, was conducted, as a result whereof 40 kgs. Poppy-husk, was recovered. Two samples of 100 grams were separated therefrom. The samples, and the bag, containing the remaining poppy-husk, were converted into parcels, duly sealed, and taken into possession, vide a separate recovery memo. Ruqa was sent to the Police Station, on the basis whereof, formal FIR was registered. Rough site plan of the place of recovery, was prepared. The accused was arrested. The statements of the witnesses, were recorded. After the completion of investigation, the accused was challaned. 3. On appearance, in the Court, the copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution, were supplied to the accused. Charge under Section 15 of the Act, was framed against him, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. The statements of the witnesses, were recorded. After the completion of investigation, the accused was challaned. 3. On appearance, in the Court, the copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution, were supplied to the accused. Charge under Section 15 of the Act, was framed against him, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined Baljeet Singh, SI, (PW-1), Bhaga Ram, HC, (PW-2), Ajaib Singh, SI, (PW-3), Chatter Pal, HC (PW-4), Shiv Charan, DSP (PW-5), Vijay Singh, SI (PW-6), the Investigating Officer, Ram Kumar, ASI (PW-7), and Anand Singh, Constable (PW-8). Thereafter, the Public Prosecutor for the State, closed the prosecution evidence. 5. The statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., was recorded, and he was put all the incriminating circumstances, appearing against him, in the prosecution evidence. He pleaded false implication. He, however, examined Shiv Dutt Singh (DW-1), Janak Raj, (DW-2), and Dr. Abhinav (DW-3), in his defence. Thereafter, he closed the defence evidence. 6. After hearing the Public Prosecutor for the State, the Counsel for the accused, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the trial Court, convicted and sentenced the accused, as stated hereinbefore. 7. Feeling aggrieved, against the judgment of conviction, and the order of sentence, rendered by the trial Court, the instant appeal, was filed by the accused/appellant. 8. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 9. The Counsel for the appellant, did not challenge the conviction recorded by the trial Court. Even otherwise, he could not challenge the same, as the same was recorded, on the basis of correct appreciation of evidence produced by the prosecution. Vijay Singh, SI (PW-6), the Investigating Officer, Shiv Charan, DSP (PW-5), a witness to the recovery, and Ram Kumar, ASI (PW-7), another witness to the recovery, made consistent statements, to the effect, that the accused was apprehended, and a bag, containing 40 kgs. Poppy-husk, was recovered from him. The evidence of these witnesses, has been thoroughly scrutinized, and nothing has come to the fore, which may go to discredit the same. The evidence of these witnesses was rightly held to be cogent, convincing, reliable, and trustworthy, by the trial Court. Poppy-husk, was recovered from him. The evidence of these witnesses, has been thoroughly scrutinized, and nothing has come to the fore, which may go to discredit the same. The evidence of these witnesses was rightly held to be cogent, convincing, reliable, and trustworthy, by the trial Court. In this view of the matter, the trial Court, was correct in coming to the conclusion, that the accused, committed an offence, punishable, under Section 15 of the Act. There is no reason to interfere with such a conclusion, arrived at by the trial Court. 10. The Counsel for the appellant, however, submitted that the sentence awarded to the accused, by the trial Court, is excessive. He further submitted that the appellant has been facing the criminal proceedings, since 2.4.2001 i.e. for the last 7 years. He further submitted that he had already undergone about 01 year and 04 months of sentence. He, thus, prayed, that the sentence awarded to the accused/appellant may be reduced suitably. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, appears to be correct. Since, the appellant has been facing the criminal proceedings, since 2.4.2001, in my opinion, the ends of justice, would be met, if the substantive sentence awarded to him, as also the sentence of fine, and the sentence awarded in default of payment of fine, is reduced suitably. Accordingly, the substantive sentence of the appellant, deserves to be reduced, from 03 years to 01 year 04 months. The sentence of fine, in the sum of Rs.10,000/-, deserves to be reduced to Rs.5000/-, and sentence awarded in default of payment of fine, deserves to be reduced to simple imprisonment for 03 months, from 06 months. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, is partly accepted, to the extent indicated above. 11. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is partly accepted. The judgment of conviction, is maintained. The substantive sentence awarded to the accused/appellant, is reduced from 3 years to 1 year and 4 months, whereas, the sentence of fine awarded to him, is reduced to RS.5000/-from Rs.10,000/-, and the sentence in default of payment of fine, is also reduced to simple imprisonment for 3 months, from simple imprisonment of 6 months. The substantive sentence awarded to the accused/appellant, is reduced from 3 years to 1 year and 4 months, whereas, the sentence of fine awarded to him, is reduced to RS.5000/-from Rs.10,000/-, and the sentence in default of payment of fine, is also reduced to simple imprisonment for 3 months, from simple imprisonment of 6 months. The Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehabad, shall take necessary steps, to comply with the judgment, in accordance with the provisions of law, taking into consideration, the applicability of the provisions of Section 428 of the Cr.P.C. The compliance report be sent within one month, from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. Order accordingly.