JUDGMENT Mr. Rajan Gupta, J. (Oral) - This is an appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated September 21, 2010, delivered by Judge, Special Court, Muktsar. The trial Court after recording the prosecution evidence, came to the conclusion that the accused/appellant was guilty of possession of contraband (i.e. 250 grams of opium). He was convicted under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to be as “NDPS Act”) and sentenced to undergo RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default whereof to further undergo RI for three months. 2. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment of the trial court, the appellant has approached this court through the instant appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant states that he is limiting his prayer only to the extent of reduction in the sentence awarded and does not assail the judgment of conviction. Learned counsel has submitted that the appellant is a poor man and sole bread winner of his family having two small children. According to him, in the present case the quantity of opium recovered from the possession of the appellant is much below the commercial quantity and out of the total awarded sentence of one year, by now he has undergone about three months. Learned counsel, therefore, prays that keeping in view the fact that he is a poor man and has to support his family and the quantity of contraband recovered from him is below the commercial quantity, the sentence be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 4. Learned State counsel has placed on record a reply by way of affidavit of the Superintendent, Sub Jail, Muktsar, according to which the appellant had undergone 02 months and 14 days of sentence as on 10.11.2010. She submits that in case conviction of the appellant is maintained, the court may reduce the sentence as deemed appropriate in the circumstances of the case. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties. Briefly, the prosecution case runs thus: On 30th April, 2006, a police party headed by ASI Gurjit Singh and other officials on private scooter/motor cycles were present on the G.T. Road near village Ratharian, in connection with patrol duty. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties. Briefly, the prosecution case runs thus: On 30th April, 2006, a police party headed by ASI Gurjit Singh and other officials on private scooter/motor cycles were present on the G.T. Road near village Ratharian, in connection with patrol duty. At that time, the accused (appellant herein) reached there on a scooter No. PB-53/1216 make Vespa from the side of Dabwali and I.O. signaled to stop the same but the the appellant tried to slip away. On suspicion, he was apprehended and his whereabouts were inquired by the Investigating Officer. The I.O. told the accused/appellant that he suspected some contraband in his possession and search is to be conducted by apprising him that he has legal right for the search in the presence of some Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate, but the accused/ appellant reposed confidence in the I.O. Then the I.O. prepared the consent memo Ex.P9 of the accused, which was attested by HC Jasvir Singh and LC Gurnam Singh and signed by the accused/appellant. Thereafter, on search of the dicky, opium wrapped in a white colour polythene envelope was recovered. Sample of 10 grams was separated and converted into a parcel. On weighment, the remaining opium came to be 240 grams and it was converted into another parcel. Both the parcels were sealed by the I.O. with his seal bearing impression ‘GS’. Specimen seal chit Ex.P2 was prepared and the seal after use was handed over to HC Jasvir Singh. The entire case property was taken into police possession vide recovery memo Ex.P10. After completion of investigation and on receipt of report of chemical examiner, the accused was sent up for trial. 5. Finding a prima facie case under Section 18 of the NDPS Act, charge sheet was framed against the accused/appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 6. To substantiate its case against the accused/appellant the prosecution examined as many as five witnesses. 7. The statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein the incriminating evidence available on record was put to him. He refuted the incriminating circumstances and pleaded false implication. In his defence, he examined one witness Dilbagh Singh and then closed his evidence. 8. 7. The statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein the incriminating evidence available on record was put to him. He refuted the incriminating circumstances and pleaded false implication. In his defence, he examined one witness Dilbagh Singh and then closed his evidence. 8. On the basis of the evidence on record, the learned trial court held the appellant guilty of the charge framed against him and sentenced him as already indicated above. 9. On a perusal of the impugned judgment as well as trial court record, I am of the considered view that the trial court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record while holding the appellant guilty of the charge framed against him. There is no infirmity or illegality in the findings given by the court below. The conviction of the appellant is, thus, affirmed. 10. Even counsel for the appellant, during the course of argument, has not assailed the judgment of conviction. He has, however, pleaded for reduction in the quantum of sentence on the ground that the appellant is poor person and main bread winner of his family. 11. Keeping in view facts and circumstances of the case, as also the fact that the appellant is a poor man and sole bread winner of the family having two small children, I deem it fit to reduce his substantive sentence to nine months R.I. The fine imposed by the trial court is, however, enhanced from Rs.5000/- to Rs.10,000/-. Ordered accordingly. The fine be deposited within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. However, in case fine aforesaid is not deposited within the stipulated period, the modification in quantum of sentence shall stand withdrawn and the appellant shall undergo the remaining period of sentence as awarded by the trial court. Except with the modification in the quantum of sentence and fine, as indicated hereinabove, the appeal stands dismissed. --------------------