Judgment :- The Criminal Appeal arises out of the judgment dated 26.3.2003 in C.C.No.109 of 2002 on the file of the Special Court for EC & NDPS Act Cases, Salem, whereby the appellant-accused was convicted for the offence under Section 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii) (A) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and Amendment Act 9 of 2001 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 60 days and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo one month rigorus imprisonment. 2. Short facts are as follows: As per the evidence of P.W.1 Sub-Inspector of Police, on 12.2.2002 at about 10.30 a.m., while prohibition raid was conducted, he arrested the accused in the presence of P.W.2 Head Constable and P.W.3 Grade.I Police Constable and seized the material objects (Ganja). P.W.1 informed about the formalities to the appellant-accused, for which he has given a statement that P.W.1 himself may conduct search and that he had no objection for the same to be made by P.W.1. After search, P.W.1 seized 500 gms. of Ganja and he prepared search report and seized M.Os.1 to 3 Ganja. P.W.1 Sub-Inspector of Police arrested the accused and registered a case in Cr.No.218 of 2002 and prepared FIR. P.W.6 Inspector of Police examined the witnesses and sent the seized Ganja to the Court and requested for sending the same for chemical examination. Ex.P-9 is the chemical analysis report. P.W.6 Inspector of Police observed all the other formalities and examined the witnesses and after concluding the investigation, filed the charge sheet against the accused. 3. The trial Court framed charge against the appellant-accused, which was denied by him. After the witnesses were examined, when the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. about the incriminating evidence, he denied the same. During the course of trial, P.Ws.1 to 6 were examined, Exs.P-1 to P-9 were marked and M.Os.1 to 3 were produced. On the basis of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant-accused as indicated above. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant-accused would contend that the appellant was found guilty of the offence under Section 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(ii)(A) of the NDPS Act and Amendment Act No.9 of 2001 and he was convicted thereunder and sentenced as indicated above. The trial Court, after questioning the appellant-accused while imposing sentence, observed that he was in custody for 64 days. The trial Court, after questioning the appellant-accused while imposing sentence, observed that he was in custody for 64 days. So, the period of imprisonment imposed was already undergone by him. Hence, the learned counsel for the appellant-accused prayed for disposing of the appeal. 5. Learned Government Advocate would state that 60 days rigorous imprisonment has been imposed, but already he was in custody for 64 days. Hence, the appeal itself does not survive and hence, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 6. Though during arguments, learned counsel for the appellant has not canvassed about the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant-accused, his main argument was that because the accused has already undergone the period of sentence awarded by the trial Court, he wanted that the period of sentence already undergone by the appellant-accused may be set-off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. 7. Even on merits of the case, though before the trial Court, it was argued that the procedures under Section 50 of the NDPS Act have not been followed, the trial Court considered the same and came to the conclusion that only after following the procedures laid down under Section 50 of the NDPS Act, the material objects were seized and it also contained the narcotic substance and also observed that the prosecution has proved that the procedures have been followed, and hence, the trial Court came to the correct conclusion that the appellant-accused is guilty of the offence under Section 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(ii)(A) of the NDPS Act. 8. The trial Court considered all the aspects in proper perspective and considered the oral and documentary evidence and thereby convicted and sentenced the appellant-accused. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment of the trial Court. 9. While considering the submissions of both sides that the accused has already undergone the period of sentence imposed by the trial Court, the same is hereby recorded and the period of imprisonment already undergone by the appellant-accused is ordered to be set-off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. 10. With the above observations, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant-accused for the offence under Section 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(ii)(A) of the NDPS Act. The period of imprisonment already undergone by the appellant-accused is ordered to be set-off under Section 428 Cr.P.C.