JUDGMENT Mr. Rajan Gupta, J. (Oral):- This is an appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30th November, 2010, delivered by Special Court, Hoshiarpur. The trial court after recording the prosecution evidence, came to the conclusion that the accused/appellant was guilty of possession of contraband (i.e. 5 grams of smack). She 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 four months and to pay a fine of Rs.2500/-, 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 assail the judgment of conviction. Learned counsel has submitted that the appellant is a poor widow and is a heart patient. She has four daughters and has no source of income. According to him, in the present case the quantity of contraband (smack) recovered from the possession of the appellant is much below the commercial quantity and out of the total awarded sentence of four years, by now she has undergone more than half of the sentence. Learned counsel, therefore, prays that keeping in view the fact that she is a poor widow and has to support her four daughters and the quantity of contraband recovered from her is much below the commercial quantity, the sentence be reduced to the period already undergone by her. 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: 7. On 26th February, 2005, ASI Ram Nath along with a police party was on patrolling duty for checking of suspected persons. The police was present at the turning of Milan Palace on Langeri Road, Mahilpur. The accused (appellant herein), who was carrying a glazed envelope in her left hand, came and was apprehended. On inquiry, she disclosed her name as Jasbir Kaur alias Faujan. The Investigating Officer asked her as to what was she carrying in the plastic envelope. The police was present at the turning of Milan Palace on Langeri Road, Mahilpur. The accused (appellant herein), who was carrying a glazed envelope in her left hand, came and was apprehended. On inquiry, she disclosed her name as Jasbir Kaur alias Faujan. The Investigating Officer asked her as to what was she carrying in the plastic envelope. She replied that there is smack in the envelope. The I.O. tried to join independent witness but every one showed his inability to join the investigation. L/HC Asha Rani No.348 took the glazed envelope and produced before the Investigating Officer and on checking it was found containing smack. The I.O. arranged computerized scale and weighed the same which came to be five grams of smack. The same was put in the same plastic envelope and then a parcel was prepared and the I.O. put his seal bearing impression ‘RN’. The entire case property was then taken into police possession. On personal search of the accused, one mobile phone and currency notes of Rs.220/- were recovered and personal search memo was also prepared. The accused was arrested. The sample alongwith the accused was produced before the Ilaqa Magistrate who checked the sample and returned the same after putting his initial. After completion of investigation and on receipt of report of chemical examiner, the accused was sent up for trial. 8. Finding a prima facie case under Section 21 of the NDPS Act, charge sheet was framed against the accused/appellant to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 9. To substantiate its case against the accused/appellant the prosecution examined as many as five witnesses. 10. The statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein the incriminating evidence available on record was put to her. She refuted the incriminating circumstances and pleaded false implication. However, the accused/appellant led no evidence in her defence. 11. On the basis of the evidence on record, the learned trial court held the appellant guilty of the charge framed against her and sentenced her as already indicated above. 12. 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 her. There is no infirmity or illegality in the findings given by the court below. 12. 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 her. There is no infirmity or illegality in the findings given by the court below. The conviction of the appellant is, thus, affirmed. 13. 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 widow and main bread winner of her children. 14. Keeping in view facts and circumstances of the case, as also the fact that the appellant is a poor widow and sole bread winner of her children i.e. four daughters, I deem it fit to reduce her substantive sentence to the period already undergone by her. However, the fine imposed by the trial court shall remain intact. Ordered accordingly. 15. The fine, if not deposited already, be deposited within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 16. Except with the modification in the quantum of sentence and fine, as indicated hereinabove, the appeal stands dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------