JUDGMENT Mr. Rajan Gupta, J. (Oral):- This is an appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20th April, 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. 20 grams smack). He was convicted under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to be as “NDPS Act”) and sentenced to undergo RI for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, 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 want to assail the judgment of conviction. Learned counsel has submitted that the appellant is sole bread winner of his family including his wife and two minor daughters. According to him, in the present case the quantity of smack recovered from the possession of the appellant is much below the commercial quantity and out of the total awarded sentence of six months, he has by now undergone more than two 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 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 15th September, 2007 SI Bhinder Singh (then ASI) along with other police officials was patrolling on scooters/private motorcycles and was present at the bridge over Ganda Nalla near Mohindra College Colony, Patiala. The accused (appellant herein) came from the side of Mohindra College Colony and on seeing the police party, he tried to turn back. On suspicion, he was apprehended and his identity was verified. ASI Bhinder Singh told the accused that it is suspected that he is carrying some narcotic substance and his search is to be conducted. The accused (appellant herein) came from the side of Mohindra College Colony and on seeing the police party, he tried to turn back. On suspicion, he was apprehended and his identity was verified. ASI Bhinder Singh told the accused that it is suspected that he is carrying some narcotic substance and his search is to be conducted. The accused was apprised about his legal right, but he reposed faith in the investigating officer. On search of the accused, smack wrapped in a glazed paper was recovered from his right pocket of pant. Two samples of 1 gram each were separated and the remaining smack weighed 18 grams. Separate parcels of both the samples and bulk were prepared and sealed with the seal bearing impression BS. Rs.100/- were also recovered during his personal search which were also taken into possession vide personal search memo. After completion of investigation, the accused was sent up for trial. 7. Finding a prima facie case under Section 21 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. However, he did not produce any evidence in his defence. 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. 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. 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. However, the fine imposed by the trial court shall remain intact. Ordered accordingly. The fine has already been deposited in the trial court vide receipt, Annexure P-1. 14. Except with the modification in the quantum of sentence and fine, as indicated herein above, the appeal stands dismissed. ----------0BSK0----------