JUDGMENT Mr. Rajan Gupta, J. (Oral):- This is an appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 5th May, 2010, delivered by Special Judge, Ferozepur. The trial court after recording the prosecution evidence, came to the conclusion that the accused/appellant was guilty of possession of contraband (i.e. 30 Kgs. 200 grams of poppy husk). He was convicted under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to be as “NDPS Act”) and sentenced to undergo RI for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default whereof to further undergo RI for two 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 labourer and sole bread winner of his family having minor kids. According to him, in the present case the quantity of contraband (poppy husk) recovered from the possession of the appellant is much below the commercial quantity and out of the total awarded sentence of three years, by now he has undergone about ten 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, Central Jail, Ferozepur, according to which the appellant had undergone 09 months and 08 days of sentence as on 16.11.2010. He 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. 5. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties. 6. Briefly, the prosecution case runs thus: 7. On 21st January, 2005, a police party headed by ASI Joginder Singh was on patrol duty and were going towards village Shah Deen Wala. In the way Bawinder Singh Ex-Sarpanch of the village was joined as private witness. 5. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties. 6. Briefly, the prosecution case runs thus: 7. On 21st January, 2005, a police party headed by ASI Joginder Singh was on patrol duty and were going towards village Shah Deen Wala. In the way Bawinder Singh Ex-Sarpanch of the village was joined as private witness. When the said police party reached a kilometer ahead of village Assal, accused (appellant herein) was seen coming from the opposite side carrying a gunny bag on his head. He tried to slip away on seeing the police party. On suspicion, he was apprehended. On enquiry he disclosed his name as Paramjit Singh aforesaid. 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 and the accused/appellant desired that his search should be conducted in the presence of some gazetted officer. Then Balwinder Singh DSP was given a message to reach at the spot who came there and introduced himself to the accused/appellant. Then on the directions of the DSP, Investigating Officer conducted the search of the bag of the accused from which poppy husk was recovered. Two samples of 100 grams each of poppy husk was separated and were converted into parcels. The remaining poppy husk, on weighment was found to be 30 kilograms. It was put in the same gunny bag and its separate parcel was prepared. Samples and the bulk parcel were sealed by the Investigating Officer with his seal bearing impression ‘JS’. The entire case property was taken into police possession. After completion of investigation and on receipt of report of chemical examiner, the accused was sent up for trial. 8. Finding a prima facie case under Section 15 of the NDPS Act, charge sheet was framed against the accused/appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 9. To substantiate its case against the accused/appellant the prosecution examined as many as five witnesses. 10. 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. However, the accused/appellant led no evidence in his defence. 11. 9. To substantiate its case against the accused/appellant the prosecution examined as many as five witnesses. 10. 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. However, the accused/appellant led no evidence in his defence. 11. 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. 12. 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. 13. 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. 14. 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 one year R.I. However, the fine imposed by the trial court shall remain intact. Ordered accordingly. The fine, if not deposited already, be deposited within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Except with the modification in the quantum of sentence and fine, as indicated hereinabove, the appeal stands dismissed. --------------------