JUDGMENT 1. - Both these appeals have been preferred by the accused appellant Ramgiri against the judgment passed by Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Cases, Baran, dated 18.12.2006, whereby appellant Ramgiri was convicted for the offence under Section 8/20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short `the N.D.PS. Act, 1985') and was sentenced to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1 lac, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that on 28.02.2005 Raja Ram, Superintendent of Police, Police Station Anta, was on 'Nakabandi' duty at Railway Level Crossing Seeswali at about 9.35 p.m. in the night along with the Police Party. The accused came there and on seeing the police, he tried to flee on being stopped in a suspicious condition. On being asked, he told his name Ramgiri and then for his search, independent witnesses were called. On being duly searched, he was found with a packet containing 1.210 Kg. 'Ganja' without any license. The same was seized on the spot after taking samples and the accused was arrested. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed in the Court. The accused appellant was charge sheeted of the offence under Section 8/20 of the N.D.PS. Act by the Court. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses in support of its case and then statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.PC. was recorded. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.PC. the accused explained that he was falsely implicated. No witness in defence was produced. After hearing final arguments, learned trial court convicted and sentenced the accused appellant in the manner indicated herein above. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Public Prosecutor and gone through the record. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted at the very out-set that he does not press the appeal on merits and his only submission is with regard to the quantum of sentence. Learned counsel submitted that the quantity of 'Ganja' recovered from the appellant is 1.210 Kg. which is just above the small quantity of 1 kg. and much less than the commercial quantity of 20 kg. Learned counsel submitted that the quantity of 'Ganja' recovered from the appellant is 1.210 Kg. which is just above the small quantity of 1 kg. and much less than the commercial quantity of 20 kg. and as such the quantum of punishment should be rationalised and the appellant who has already undergone sentence for about three years and nine months, should be released on the sentence already undergone. He has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Ghasita Sahu v. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in 2008 (3) S.C.C. 52 and submitted that in the said case, the Apex Court reduced the sentence of five years to the sentence already undergone, though the quantity of 'ganja' was recovered to be 17.750 Kg. looking to the fact that the accused was middle aged man from a poor back ground as the accused had already completed four years behind the bars. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the reduction of sentence and supported the judgment of the trial court. 5. On going through the evidence adduced by the prosecution, it is revealed that the learned trial court has discussed the evidence adduced by the prosecution in detail and has given a categorical finding that the fact of recovery of 'ganja' from the accused has been established by PW. 9 Raja Ram, Incharge of the Police Party, who conducted the proceedings of the seizure and sealing on the spot and the same has been further corroborated by the members of the police party P.W. 1 Bheru Singh, P.W. 2 Rajendra Singh Constable, P.W. 3 Gajendra Singh, A.S.I., P.W. 6 Laxmi Chand, Head Constable, P.W. 7 Kishan Lal, S.I. The fact of taking the sample to the F.S.L. in a sealed condition has also been proved by P.W. 4 Heera Chand, Constable and P.W. 5 Ramesh Chand, Head Constable, Incharge Malkhana. The contraband recovered was found to be `ganja' as per the Ex.P8, F.S.L. Report. Thus, I find that the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the accused appellant for the offence under Section 8/20 of the N.D.PS. Act and the judgment of conviction calls for no interference. 6. The contraband recovered was found to be `ganja' as per the Ex.P8, F.S.L. Report. Thus, I find that the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the accused appellant for the offence under Section 8/20 of the N.D.PS. Act and the judgment of conviction calls for no interference. 6. As regards the submission for reduction of sentence, it may be noted that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ghasita (supra) has reduced the sentence from five years to four years (already undergone) though the quantity of 'ganja' was found to be 17.750 Kg. while in the present case the quantity is much less than the commercial quantity as the quantity recovered is 1.210 Kg. and it is little more than small quantity of one kg. as provided at SI. No. 55 of the Notification dated 19h Oct. 2001, issued under Section 2 of the N.D.PS. Act. In this case the accused appellant is a person from rural background and he is also a middle aged person and in view of the quantity recovered and looking to the fact that he has already remained behind bars three years and eight months and as such his substantive sentence deserves to be reduced to the period he has already undergone and the fine of As. 1 lac also deserves to be reduced. 7. For these reasons, the impugned judgment passed by learned Special Judge N.D.PS. Cases, Baran, in Sessions Case No. 43/2005 is modified and the conviction of appellant Ramgiri under Section 8/20 of the N.D.P.S. Act 1985 is maintained. His substantive sentence for the offence under Section 8/20 of the N.D.PS. Act 1985 is reduced to the sentence already undergone. The sentence of fine to As. 1 lac is reduced to Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment. 8. Revised jail warrant be prepared accordingly. 9. The appeal stands disposed of.Appeal Disposed of As Above. *******