JUDGMENT Mr. L. N. Mittal, J. (Oral):- Accused Chander Bhan has filed the instant criminal appeal assailing his conviction and sentence ordered by learned Judge, Special Court, Sangrur, vide judgment and order dated 25.02.2003, thereby convicting the accused-appellant under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short – the Act) and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default thereof, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month. 2. Prosecution case in brief is as under :- On 07.02.1998, police party comprising of ASI Surjit Singh, HC Baldev Singh and other police officials was present in the area of Village Sekhuwas. Swaran Singh – Ex-Sarpanch met them. Accused Chander Bhan was seen coming on foot with a plastic bag on his head. He tried to slip away on seeing the police party. However, he was apprehended on suspicion. He was asked if he wanted his search before Gazetted Officer or Magistrate. The accused desired to be searched before Gazetted Officer. Accordingly, DSP Amarjit Singh was called at the spot. Again on inquiry, the accused consented to his search before DSP Amarjit Singh – a Gazetted Officer. Thereupon, on search of bag of the accused, it was found to contain 8 kilograms of poppy husk. Out of it, two samples of 250 grams each were separated. The samples and the remaining poppy husk in the bag were sealed separately and were seized by the police. FIR was got registered by sending Ruqa to the Police Station. Rough site plan of the place of occurrence was prepared. Statements of witnesses were recorded. On return to Police Station, the accused along with witnesses and case property, was produced before SI/SHO Simrat Pal Singh, who verified the facts and affixed his own seal on the case property. Sample, on analysis by Chemical Examiner, was found to be of poppy head. Accordingly, on completion of investigation, police presented report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short – Cr.P.C.) for prosecution of the accused under Section 15 of the Act. 3. Charge under Section 15 of the Act was framed against the accused, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. In support of its case, prosecution examined six witnesses. 5. 3. Charge under Section 15 of the Act was framed against the accused, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. In support of its case, prosecution examined six witnesses. 5. Inspector Simrat Pal Singh (PW-1) stated that while posted as SHO on 07.02.1998, the accused along with witnesses and case property was produced before him. He verified the facts and affixed his own seal on the case property. 6. ASI Surjit Singh (PW-2), HC Baldev Singh (PW-3) and SP Amarjit Singh (previously DSP) (PW-6) broadly stated according to the prosecution version regarding recovery of 8 kilograms of poppy husk from the accused. 7. Constable Nazir Singh (PW-4) and HC Satwinder Singh (PW-5) tendered their affidavits being formal witnesses. 8. The accused, in his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence and claimed to be innocent. He did not lead any evidence in his defence. 9. Learned Judge, Special Court, Sangrur, vide impugned judgment and order, convicted and sentenced the accused as already noticed herein before. Feeling aggrieved, the convict has preferred the instant criminal appeal. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. 11. All the prosecution witnesses have fully supported the prosecution case. Their statements could not be impeached in their crossexamination. The accused was caught in the area of Police Station Lehra, District Sangrur of Punjab, whereas the accused belonged to District Hisar of Haryana. In these circumstances, there was no question of false implication of the accused in the case. No suggestion was even put to the prosecution witnesses in their cross-examination for false implication of the accused. On the other hand, the prosecution case is supported by testimony of a Gazetted Officer, besides statements of two other police officials regarding recovery of the contraband poppy husk from the accused. There is no reason to doubt or disbelieve their statements. They had no enmity with the accused. It is correct that Swarn Singh – independent witness was given up. However, he had to be given up because he had been won over by the accused. Police officials had no malice or ill-will against the accused. They thus had no motive to implicate the accused in a false case. Consequently, their statements are as much credible as those of non-official witnesses. However, he had to be given up because he had been won over by the accused. Police officials had no malice or ill-will against the accused. They thus had no motive to implicate the accused in a false case. Consequently, their statements are as much credible as those of non-official witnesses. Their statements cannot be suspected merely because of their official uniform. It is thus manifest that prosecution evidence is cogent and reliable and inspires confidence and is, therefore, sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Even counsel for the appellant could not advance any meaningful argument to assail the conviction of the accused, which is well-founded and supported by reasons. Accordingly, impugned judgment of conviction of the appellant is upheld. 12. As regards quantum of sentence, counsel for the appellant prayed for reduction in sentence. The prayer has been opposed by learned State counsel. 13. I have carefully considered the matter. 14. The occurrence took place more than 13 years ago. During this long period, the accused has faced the agony of trial including present appeal. Custody Certificate of the appellant, filed today in Court by learned State counsel, which is taken on record, reveals that the appellant has already remained in custody in this case for 04 months and 26 days. In view thereof, it would not be appropriate to send the accused again behind bars after lapse of such a long period. In my considered opinion, ends of justice would be met if the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him in custody, while enhancing the sentence of fine from Rs.1,000/-, as imposed by the trial court, to Rs.5,000/-. It is ordered accordingly. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. 15. With modification in sentence as aforesaid, the instant appeal stands disposed of accordingly. ----------------