B.D. Agarwal, J.;- This appeal is directed against the Judg­ment and Order dated 09.05.2011, passed by the learned Special Judge, under NDPS Act, Aizawl, in Criminal Trial Excise Case No. 2039 of 2009. By this impugned Judg­ment, the appellant herein, has been convicted under Section 20 (b) (ii) (B) of the NDPS Act, 1985 and she has been sentenced to undergo RI for 3 (three) years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand), and in default of payment of fine, further RI for 3 (three) months. Being aggrieved with the Judgment and Order, the appellant has filed this appeal. 2. Heard Sri P C Prusty, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Sri Nelson Sailo, learned Public Prosecutor, appearing on be­half of the State of Mizoram. 3. I have also perused the impugned Judg­ment. 4. The prosecution case is that on 15.09.2009, the appellant was found stand­ing in a suspicious manner in a place known as Edenthar. A plastic bag was also lying near her. On checking the bag 5.6 kgs of ganja was found therein. Thereafter, the Excise Of­ficials brought the accused to their Office for further interrogation. As per the evidence of PW-6, the accused did not disclose her ac­tual name as well as the actual place of her residence. Thereafter, with the help of PW-3 and the landlord of the accused lady, her place of residence was located. Thereafter, another search in her residence was carried out where-from, 55kgs of ganja was recovered. Out of the total quantity of ganja, 25 kgs of ganja was kept in a black bag and 30 kgs of ganja was kept in 9 (nine) small size polythene bags. 5. From the above prosecution story, the narcotic drug was recovered/ seized from 2 (two) different places. PWs 2 and 3 are the witnesses of the first recovery and PWs 4 and 5 are the witnesses of the second recovery. PW1 is the Excise Constable who had lodged the FIR, under instructions of her superior Officers after recovery of ganja from Edenthar. PWs 6 and 7 are the Sub-Inspec­tor and Inspector of Excise. Precisely, PW 6 has investigated the case. P W 7 has submit­ted the final report. PW 7 was shown as the FSL expert, but he was not examined a wit­ness in the Court. 6. During cross-examination of the wit­nesses, the accused did not put up any de­fence story. PWs 6 and 7 are the Sub-Inspec­tor and Inspector of Excise. Precisely, PW 6 has investigated the case. P W 7 has submit­ted the final report. PW 7 was shown as the FSL expert, but he was not examined a wit­ness in the Court. 6. During cross-examination of the wit­nesses, the accused did not put up any de­fence story. In other words, the accused de­nied her involvement in drug trafficking in a casual manner. However, while giving her statement under Section 313 CrPC, the ac­cused admitted about the recovery of 55 kgs of ganja from her tenanted premises as well as 5 kgs of ganja from Edenthar. 7. After the evidence was over, the learned Judge disbelieved the recovery of 5.578 kgs of ganja from the possession of the accused at Edenthar on the sole ground that PWs 2 and 3 were not present at the time of recov­ery. With regard to the recovery of 55 kgs of ganja, the learned trial Judge has accepted the prosecution story, but the accused/appel­lant has been convicted only for possessing intermediate quantity of ganja on the ground that the Investigating Officer had taken samples from only 2 (two) small packets, weighing nearly 4 kgs of ganja. 8. While reducing the offence from that of possessing of commercial quantity of ganja to intermediate quantity of ganja, the learned Special Judge has relied upon a few Judg­ments of the Supreme Court. One such Judg­ment rendered in the case of State of NCT of Delhi Vs. Ashif Khan @ Kalu, reported in (2009) 4 SCC 42 was perused by me. In my considered opinion, the ratio laid down in that case is not applicable in this case, inas­much as, the Chemical Examiner did not give any percentage of ganja from the total weight of sample. In other words, as per the FSL report, the entire quantity was cannabi s/ganja. If that be so, the accused should have been convicted for possessing commercial quan­tity. However, since the State has not filed any appeal, it would not be proper for me to enhance the sentence in an appeal filed by the convict. 9. Sri Prusty, learned counsel for the ap­pellant, submitted that the prosecution also failed to prove the recovery of ganja from the tenanted premises of the appellant, inasmuch as, there are discrepancies in the statements of PWs 4 and 5. 10. 9. Sri Prusty, learned counsel for the ap­pellant, submitted that the prosecution also failed to prove the recovery of ganja from the tenanted premises of the appellant, inasmuch as, there are discrepancies in the statements of PWs 4 and 5. 10. It is true that PW 5 has admitted in the cross-examination that at the time of search and seizure, PW 4 was not present. In view of the aforesaid statement of PW 5 in the cross-examination, the testimony of PW 4 was closely scrutinized, since this witness was residing at a distance of 400 metres away from the appellant's house. After going though the evidence of PW 4, it appears to me that the aforesaid witness must have come to the place of recovery after sometime. 11. Be that as it may, the testimony of PW 5 is quite satisfactory with regard to the search and seizure. This witness was the immediate neighbour of the accused and he had witnessed the search from the very beginning. Besides this, PW 5 was also the Vice-Presi-dent of YMA Branch, and as such, this wit­ness is wholly reliable. 12. It is the settled position of law that a fact can be proved by any number of wit­nesses. In other words, multiple evidence of a particular fact may not exist under certain circumstances. In the present case, PW 5 has thoroughly corroborated the Investigating Officer about the seizure. 13. The above apart, the accused had also admitted about the fact of recovery of ganja from her possession in her 313 statement. Under Section 313 (4) CrPC, the answers given by the accused may be taken into con­sideration in any enquiry or trial. There are a good number of Judgments from the Hon'ble Supreme Court, wherein, it has been ob­served that if the accused does not dispute the incriminating circumstances those may be considered along with substantive evidence. 14. Having regard to ail these aspects, I do not find any merit in this appeal and the appeal is consequently dismissed. The con­viction of the appellant is hereby affirmed. Similarly, I do not see any ground to interfere with the sentence.