JUDGMENT Mr. Rajan Gupta, J. (Oral):- This is an appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10th May, 2011, delivered by Judge, Special Court, Mansa. The trial court after recording the prosecution evidence, came to the conclusion that the accused/appellant was guilty of possession of contraband (i.e. 500 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 six months and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default whereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment 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 young boy and has to maintain his family. According to him, in the present case the quantity of contraband (opium) recovered from the possession of the appellant is much below the commercial quantity and out of the total awarded sentence of six months, he had already undergone 05 months and 06 days. Learned counsel, therefore, prays that keeping in view the fact that he 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 reliance on the affidavit dated 19th July, 2011 of the Superintendent, Central Jail, Bathinda already on record, according to which the appellant had already undergone 04 months and 11 days of sentence as on 18.7.2011. 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 29th February, 2008, a police party headed by ASI Sher Singh reached at Railway Phatak, Boha Road, Budhlada while on routine checking and patrolling. One Atma Singh son of Amar Singh also met them, who was also joined in the police party. 5. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties. 6. Briefly, the prosecution case runs thus: On 29th February, 2008, a police party headed by ASI Sher Singh reached at Railway Phatak, Boha Road, Budhlada while on routine checking and patrolling. One Atma Singh son of Amar Singh also met them, who was also joined in the police party. The police party then proceeded towards village Phulu Wala Dogra and when they reached near a sheller situated on Phulu Wala Road, accused (appellant herein) was seen coming on a scooter who on seeing the police party, tried to turn his scooter. On suspicion, the accused was apprehended. Out of apprehension, the accused took out a polythene bag from his dub and threw it in the basket of the scooter and in that process, lower portion of the polythene bag got torn and opium was visible therein. On checking, it was found opium. Out of the recovered opium, 10 grams was separated as sample and converted into a parcel. On weighment, the remaining opium came to be 490 grams. It was also converted into a parcel. Both the parcels were sealed by ASI Sher Singh with his seal bearing impression ‘SS’. All the case property was taken into police possession and a ruqa was sent to the police station, on which formal FIR was recorded at Police Station Budhlada. After completion of investigation and on receipt of report of chemical examiner, the accused was sent up for trial. 7. 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. 8. To substantiate its case against the accused/appellant the prosecution examined as many as four 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. The accused also examined Atma Singh as DW1 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. He refuted the incriminating circumstances and pleaded false implication. The accused also examined Atma Singh as DW1 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 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. 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 a young boy and has to support his family. 13. Keeping in view facts and circumstances of the case, as also the fact that the appellant 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. 14. The fine, if not deposited already, be deposited within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which 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----------