JUDGMENT Sabina, J.:- Appellant Madan Lal @ Maddi was convicted for an offence under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act- for short) vide judgment dated 2.5.2005 passed by the Special Judge, Rohtak. Vide order dated 4.5.2005, the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 ½ years with a fine of Rs.20,000/-. Hence, the present appeal. 2. Prosecution case, as noticed by the Appellate Court in para 2 of its judgment, is reproduced herein below:- “ Shorn of un-necessary details the facts of the prosecution case within short compass are that on 28.5.2004 Subordinate Inspector (SI) Ram Bhaj was going from old vegetable market towards Babra Mohalla along with other police officials and was near HUDA complex, accused was seen coming from opposite side. He at once returned and started moving quickly. Due to suspicion he was apprehended. As some contraband article was suspected with him, so notice Ex.D-1 was served upon him vide which it was told that he was having some contraband article with him and his search is to be conducted. He was also told that he was having a right to get himself searched before a Magistrate or gazetted officer police. Vide reply Ex.P-10 accused opted for his search before a gazetted officer police. Thereafter, information was sent to Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) M.I.Khan. He came to the spot and as per his directions, when search of accused was conducted, opium wrapped in a polythene paper was recovered from his right hand side pocket of his pant. On weighment, that was found to be 110/- gms. Two samples of 10 gms each were separated and put in separate plastic containers. Three separate parcels were prepared and sealed with seal RB of SI Rambhaj and MIK of DSP. Parcels were taken into possession vide memo Ex.P-6, specimen impression of the seal were also separated. Ruqa Ex.P-1 was sent to P.S.City, Rohtak for registration of case on the basis of which, formal FIR was recorded by Assistant Subordinate Inspector (ASI) Sunil Kumar, carbon copy of which is Ex.P-2. Rough site plan of the place of recovery Ex.P-11 was also prepared. Thereafter, accused, witnesses and case property were produced before Inspector/Station House Officer (SHO) Inder Singh. He verified the facts from them and affixed his seal ISK on the parcels. Rough site plan of the place of recovery Ex.P-11 was also prepared. Thereafter, accused, witnesses and case property were produced before Inspector/Station House Officer (SHO) Inder Singh. He verified the facts from them and affixed his seal ISK on the parcels. Accused was put in the lock up and case property was deposited with Moharrir Head Constable (MHC). Notice Ex.P-9, prepared under Section 57 of the Act, was sent to DSP which was seen by him. After completion of necessary investigation, report under Section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short Cr.P.C.) was prepared by Shri Inder Singh, Inspector/SHO and sent to Court for trial of the accused.” 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant is the only bread earner of the family and is aged about 50- 60 years. The appellant was found in possession of 110 grams of opium. The appellant is not a previous convict and has already undergone more than six months of actual sentence. Learned counsel has not challenged the conviction of the appellant under Section 18 of the NDPS Act but has submitted that sentence qua imprisonment of the appellant be reduced to already undergone by him. 4. Keeping in view the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant, the sentence qua imprisonment of the appellant is liable to be reduced to already undergone by him 5. As per the custody certificate placed on record by the learned State counsel, the appellant has undergone more than six months of actual sentence and is not involved in any other criminal case. 6. Accordingly, conviction of the appellant under Section 18 of the NDPS Act is maintained. However, the sentence qua imprisonment of the appellant is reduced to already undergone by him. Fine, as imposed by the trial Court, if not already deposited by the appellant, shall be deposited by him within two months from today failing which this appeal shall stand dismissed. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. ———————