JUDGMENT K.S. Garewal , J. - Mithlesh Singh was detained by the police on January 30, 2002 on a link road connecting Dhanaula road to Handiaya road. Mithlesh Singh was walking from the side of Handiaya road, with a white plastic bag on his left shoulder. The bag was found to contain 3.70 kgs charas. 2. Mithlesh Singh was tried by the learned Special Judge, Barnala, who found him guilty under section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and WHO Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Apt) for possessing 3.70 kgs. of charas and on June 9, 2005 convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 12 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1 lac. In default of payment of fine, he was to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. 3. The case of the prosecution was that on January 30, 2002 Inspector Surinderpal Singh (PW-2) alongwith other members of the police party were travelling in canter PB-13B-2190 on the above-mentioned link road. About 100 yards short of a godown they met Surinder Kumar of Barnala. The Inspector stopped and started talking to Surinder Kumar. He saw a person coming from the side of Handiaya, carrying a plastic bag. Suspicion arose and the person with the bag was detained. This was at about 2.30 p.m. On being asked, the suspect disclosed that he was Mithlesh Singh of Majhwalia, P.S. Mehmadpur, District Gopal Ganj, Bihar. The suspect was told that he had the right to be searched by a Gazetted Officer and the suspect agreed. The Investigator sent a message to DSP Kamaldeep Singh (PW-5), who reached at 3.30 p.m. The DSP disclosed his identity to the suspect and the plastic bag was searched. The bag contained 3.70 kgs of charas. A sample was separated, whereafter the bag and the sample were taken taken into possession vide recovery memos. Report was sent to the Police Station, Kotwali, Barnala at 5.15 p.m. and FIR 28 was registered against Mithlesh Singh. 4. The sample was sent for chemical analysis to Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh. The Deputy Director (Toxicology) reported that sample contained tetrahydrocenabinole systalethic wall and the percentage of resin was 24.08%. The sample was declared as "charas". 5. On conclusion of the investigation, Mithlesh Singh was sent up for trial. 4. The sample was sent for chemical analysis to Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh. The Deputy Director (Toxicology) reported that sample contained tetrahydrocenabinole systalethic wall and the percentage of resin was 24.08%. The sample was declared as "charas". 5. On conclusion of the investigation, Mithlesh Singh was sent up for trial. At the trial, charge was framed under Section 20 of the Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 6. The prosecution examined ASI Raj Kumar (PW-1), Inspector Surinderpal Singh (PW-2), C. Mohinder Singh (PW-3), HC A. Singh (PW-4) and DSP Kamaldeep Singh (PW-5). On the conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined without oath under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code He denied the evidence produced against him. He pleaded that he lived in a rented house as a tenant. The owner of the house wanted to get the house vacated as such he was implicated at the behest of the landlord. Accused examined MHC Gurpal Singh (DW-1) and Surinder Kumar (DW-2). MHC Gurpal Singh (DW-1) testified with regard to the entry in register 19. Surinder Kumar (DW-2) testified that nothing incriminating was recovered from the accused in his presence nor was he arrested. The witness himself had been an accused in a murder case. After the witness had been convicted and sentenced, he was released on bail by the High Court. The witness would be often summoned at the Police Station, Kotwali, Barnala, where his signatures were obtained on a blank paper. The learned Special Judge, Barnala, accepted the prosecution case and convicted the accused. 7. In appeal, it has been argued that the link evidence in the case was missing. The sample had been sent to FSL, after a long delay, the prosecution had failed to explain the delay and also failed to show how the sample had been kept tamper proof. 8. We have gone through the evidence of the case and find that all the necessary steps in the investigation, all legal safeguards had been observed. The main argument of the learned counsel for the appellant was that the solitary independent witness Surinder Kumar (DW-2) had given the true version. Surinder Kumars signature was missing from the non-consent memo exhibit PA. This showed that Surinder Kumar was not present with the police at that time. The main argument of the learned counsel for the appellant was that the solitary independent witness Surinder Kumar (DW-2) had given the true version. Surinder Kumars signature was missing from the non-consent memo exhibit PA. This showed that Surinder Kumar was not present with the police at that time. We have examined the original record and find that Surinder Kumar had indeed not signed the so-called non-consent memo. But this is merely the first step in investigation. Thereafter, the DSP reached the spot and the charas was recovered from the bag. This was taken into possession vide recovery memo exhibit PB. This document has Surinder Kumars signatures as attesting witness. Similarly, the subsequent documents, like the memo regarding personal search, the memo of arrest, which are exhibits PC and PD, have Surinder Kumars signatures. It could be said that Surinder Kumar signed on PB, PC and PD) later as the pen used by him contained ink different to the ink in which the documents were written and signed by the other witnesses. However, we would not make too much out of this discrepancy because we are convinced that Mithlesh Singh was arrested on January 30, 2002 and found to be in possession of charas when his bag was searched by DSP Kamaldeep Singh. Surinder Kumar did appear as a defence witness but he did not come out to be a paragon of virtue. He was a convict in a case of murder and had been only recently granted bail by the appellate court. 9. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the appellant has been continuously in custody since January 30, 2002 and has spent 6 years and 8 months in custody. No other conviction has been proved against him. He has not been shown to be an experienced smuggler of charas but was probably a small time peddler. Therefore, sentence should be reduced. 10. We agree with the learned counsel in this regard and are of the view that the sentence of the appellant deserves to be reduced from 12 years to 10 years. We are also of the view that the sentence in default of payment of fine of Rs. 1 lac deserves to be reduced from 1 year to 6 months. We order accordingly. This appeal is allowed with the above modification in the sentence. Appeal allowed.