JUDGMENT Mr. Rajan Gupta, J.: (Oral) - This is an appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16th May, 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. 6 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 six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, 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 person and his two sons and wife are dependent upon him. 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 six months, he has already undergone 04 months and 04 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 relied upon a reply by way of affidavit dated 2.8.2011 of the Superintendent, Central Jail, Patiala, which is already on record, according to which the appellant had already undergone 03 months and 02 days of sentence as on 30.7.2011. 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. 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 13th June, 2006, SI Gajjan Singh along with his police companions, in connection with patrolling duty was present opposite Hira Bagh Gurudawara Sahib, where he received a secret information to the effect that one Sikh gentleman was engaged in sale of poppy husk by keeping the same in a plastic bag, under New Bridge, Rishi Colony. Finding the said information to be reliable, SI Gajjan Singh along with the police party reached the disclosed place and saw the said Sikh gentleman towards the left side of bridge while keeping with him a plastic bag. The plastic bag was containing poppy husk. The said person was apprehended by the SI. On inquiry, he disclosed his name as Mukhtiar Singh (appellant herein). Thereafter, SI Gajjan Singh had disclosed his identity and stated that poppy husk is visible in the plastic bag in his possession and he has to initiate proceedings qua the same. He also apprised him of his right to get the search conducted in the presence of some Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate, but the accused reposed confidence in the investigating officer. Then search of the bag was conducted by SI Sajjan Singh from which poppy husk was recovered. The I.O. drawn two samples of 100 grams each from the bag and residue poppy husk weighed to be 5 Kgs 800 grams. Separate parcels of the samples and residue poppy husk were prepared and sealed with seal bearing impression ‘GS’. 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. 7. 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. 8. To substantiate its case against the accused/appellant the prosecution examined as many as five 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. 8. To substantiate its case against the accused/appellant the prosecution examined as many as five 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. He examined HC Gurmit Singh as DW1 and Gurmail Singh as DW2 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 the main bread winner of his family and has children to support. 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 including his wife and two sons, 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. 15. Except with the modification in the quantum of sentence and fine, as indicated herein above, the appeal stands dismissed. ------------------