JUDGMENT Rajan Gupta, J. (Oral):- This is an appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18th December, 2010, delivered by 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. 70 grams of Sulfa (Charas). Co-accused Mahesh Kumar alias Mehs was also held guilty for having 100 grams of Sulfa (Charas). Both the accused were convicted under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to be as “NDPS Act”) and sentenced to undergo RI for four months. 2. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment of the trial court, the appellant Bittu 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 mechanic having his wife and three children and there is no one in the family to look after them. According to him, in the present case the quantity of contraband (Charas) recovered from the possession of the appellant is much below the commercial quantity and out of the total awarded sentence of four months, by now he has undergone 01 month and 19 days. He has placed on record custody certificate in this regard. Learned counsel, therefore, prays that keeping in view the fact that the appellant has to support his family including minor children 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. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties. 5. Briefly, the prosecution case runs thus: On 28th April, 2005, S.I. Inder Vir Sharma along with other police officials was on patrolling duty and present at NIS Chowk Sheesh Mehal Road, Patiala. He received a secret information to the effect that Mahesh alias Mehs and Bittu indulge in the sale of Sulfa (Charas) and were bringing the same from Himachal Pradesh and proceeding towards their house in Dhiru Ki Majri, Patiala. He received a secret information to the effect that Mahesh alias Mehs and Bittu indulge in the sale of Sulfa (Charas) and were bringing the same from Himachal Pradesh and proceeding towards their house in Dhiru Ki Majri, Patiala. On this information, a Naka was raised and after some time both the accused reached there from the side of Sheesh Mehal, Patiala. On seeing the police party, they got perplexed and tried to turn back. They were apprehended by the police and their identity was verified. SI Inder Vir Sharma gave his introduction to the accused and told that it is suspected that they are carrying Sulfa (Charas), therefore, their search is to be conducted. He apprised the accused of their right to get the search conducted in the presence of gazetted officer or a Magistrate, but the accused reposed confidence upon him. Then after recording their consent statement, search of both the accused was conducted. From the search of Mahesh Kumar co-accused, 100 grams of Sulfa (Charas) was recovered and from the possession of accused Bittu (appellant herein) 70 grams of Sulfa (Charas) was recovered. Samples were separated and separate bulks were prepared and sealed with the seal bearing impression IV. 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. 6. 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. 7. To substantiate its case against the accused/appellant the prosecution examined as many as five witnesses. 8. 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, accused/appellant led no evidence in his defence. 9. 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. 10. 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. 10. 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. 11. 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 only bread winner of his family including three minor children. 12. Keeping in view facts and circumstances of the case, as also the fact that the appellant has to maintain his wife and minor children, I deem it fit to reduce his substantive sentence to the period already undergone by him. Ordered accordingly. 13. Except with the modification in the quantum of sentence and fine, as indicated hereinabove, the appeal stands dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------