JUDGMENT Mr. Rajan Gupta, J. (Oral):- This is an appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15th February, 2011, delivered by Judge, Special Court, Patiala. The trial court after recording the prosecution evidence, came to the conclusion that the accused/appellant was guilty of possession of contraband (i.e. 10 Kgs 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 one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default whereof to further undergo RI for one month. 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 has to support his family. According to him, in the present case the quantity of poppy husk recovered from the possession of the appellant is much below the commercial quantity and out of the total awarded sentence of one year, he has undergone about 04 months and 01 day. 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 dated 27th April, 2011 of the Officiating Superintendent, Central Jail, Patiala, according to which the appellant had undergone 02 months and 25 days of sentence as on 26.4.2011. 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: On 23rd July, 2007, ASI Jagdish Kumar alongwith other police officials, in connection with patrol duty and search of bad elements in a private vehicle, turned from village Mavi Kalan towards village Zoremajra. Then one Ram Singh was joined in the police party. 5. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties. 6. Briefly, the prosecution case runs thus: On 23rd July, 2007, ASI Jagdish Kumar alongwith other police officials, in connection with patrol duty and search of bad elements in a private vehicle, turned from village Mavi Kalan towards village Zoremajra. Then one Ram Singh was joined in the police party. They proceeded towards village Zoremajra and when reached near bridge of Bhakhra canal, then the accused (appellant herein) came there with a plastic bag on his head. On seeing the police party, the accused turned towards the fields on his right side but was apprehended at the spot. The I.O. told the accused about his own identification and that he suspected some contraband in the plastic bag and search of the same was to be conducted. The IO also apprised him of his legal right to be searched before some Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate, but the accused reposed faith in him, vide consent statement Ex.PA signed by the accused. The IO then searched the bag, from which poppy husk was recovered. Two samples of 100 grams each were drawn and converted into parcels and the remaining poppy husk on weighment came out to be 9.800 Kgs which was put in the same bag and separate parcels were prepared. After completion of investigation and on receipt of report of chemical examiner Ex.PK, the accused was sent up for trial. 7. Finding a prima facie case under Section 15 of the NDPS Act, 1985 charge was framed against the accused/appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 8. To substantiate its case against the accused/appellant the prosecution examined as many as six witnesses. 9. 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 defence, the accused examined Gurvinder Singh as DW1 and Ram Singh as DW2. 10. 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. 11. On a perusal of the impugned judgment of the court below, 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. 11. On a perusal of the impugned judgment of the court below, 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. 12. 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. 13. Keeping in view facts and circumstances of the case, as also the fact that the appellant is a poor man and has to support his family, I deem it fit to reduce his substantive sentence to the period already undergone by him. The fine imposed by the trial court is, however, enhanced from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.5,000/-. Ordered accordingly. 14. 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. 15. Except with the modification in the quantum of sentence and fine, as indicated herein above, the appeal stands dismissed. ----------0BSK0----------