JUDGMENT Mr. Rajan Gupta, J. (Oral): - This is an appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10th October, 2009, delivered by Special Court, Tarn Taran. The trial court after recording the prosecution evidence, came to the conclusion that the accused/appellant was guilty of possession of contraband (i.e. 40 Kgs of poppy husk). He was convicted under Section 25 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to be as “NDPS Act”) and sentenced to undergo RI for four years and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/-, in default whereof to further undergo RI for one year. 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 man and has to support his family. According to him, in the present case the quantity of poppy husk recovered from the possession of the appellant is much below the commercial quantity and out of the total awarded sentence of four years, he has undergone about 01 year 05 months and 05 days. Learned counsel, therefore, prays that keeping in view the fact that he is a poor man and 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 placed on record a reply by way of affidavit dated 14th March, 2011 of the Superintendent, Central Jail, Amritsar, according to which the appellant had undergone 01 year 05 months and 03 days of sentence as on 13.3.2011. 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. Briefly, the prosecution case runs thus: On 23rd December, 2002, a police party headed by Inspector Lakhbir Singh of CIA Staff Patti was on patrol duty. A secret information was received by him that a Ceilo Car of white colour bearing registration No. PB-02Q-1587 was coming from Harike side and possessing some intoxicant substance. 6. Briefly, the prosecution case runs thus: On 23rd December, 2002, a police party headed by Inspector Lakhbir Singh of CIA Staff Patti was on patrol duty. A secret information was received by him that a Ceilo Car of white colour bearing registration No. PB-02Q-1587 was coming from Harike side and possessing some intoxicant substance. The Inspector laid a Naka with the help of the other police force and a Ceilo car bearing registration No.PB-02Q-1587 of white colour came and signal was given to stop the car, but the car driver stopped the car at a distance of 10/15 Karams and car driver ran away after alighting from the same. One old person was sitting on the rear seat of the car, who told his name as Swaran Singh son of Joga Singh. He further disclosed the name of driver as Nishan Singh (appellant herein) who is his son. Inspector Lakhbir Singh gave an option to the accused for search of his car from him or from a Gazetted Officer. Non-consent memo was prepared. Then DSP Rajinderpal was called upon, who reached at the spot. In the meantime Mohan Singh Nambardar was also joined. DSP Rajinderpal also gave option to accused Swaran Singh for his search from him or from Magistrate or the other Gazetted Officer and accused reposed confidence in DSP. His consent memo was prepared. Then, on search of car, a jute bag was found lying in the dicky of the car and it was containing poppy husk. 1 Kg. was separated as a sample and remaining was found 39 Kgs. Parcels were prepared and same were sealed with seal of Inspector Lakhbir Singh as “LS” and seal of DSP Rajinderpal as “RP”. 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, 1985 charge 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 four witnesses and submitted report of Chemical Examiner. 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 four witnesses and submitted report of Chemical Examiner. 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. However, he did not produce any evidence 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 of the court below, 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 poor person and main bread winner of his family. 13. Keeping in view facts and circumstances of the case, as also the fact that the appellant is the sole bread winner of the family, I deem it fit to reduce his substantive sentence to the period already undergone by him. The fine imposed by the trial court is, however, enhanced from Rs.20,000/- to Rs.50,000/-. Ordered accordingly. 14. The fine be deposited within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. However, in case fine aforesaid is not deposited within the stipulated period, the modification in quantum of sentence shall stand withdrawn and the appellant shall undergo the remaining period of sentence as awarded by the trial court. 15. Except with the modification in the quantum of sentence and fine, as indicated hereinabove, the appeal stands dismissed. ----------0BSK0----------