JUDGMENT Mr. Paramjeet Singh, J.: - The present appeal has been preferred by Davinder Singh, who was nominated as an accused in case FIR No.52 of 11.09.2000, registered at Police Station Mullepur, under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as the “NDPS Act”). The learned Trial Court vide the impugned judgment dated 15.04.2003 found the appellant guilty of offence under Section 15 of NDPS Act and vide the order of even date, sentenced him to undergo RI for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-, in default whereof, he was to undergo further RI for twpo months. 2. In the present appeal, challenge is to conviction pronounced and sentence awarded by the learned Trial Court upon the appellant – Davinder Singh. 3. Brief facts as culled out from the record of the case are, that ASI Sadha Singh along with other police officials was going in a private vehicle in connection with patrolling and checking ofsuspicious elements and were present on the bridge of Bhakra Canal within the limit of Village Ucha Reona and accused was seen coming on foot from the direction on Bus Stand Rajindergarh carrying a blue coloured bag on his right shoulder. On the basis of suspicion, he was apprehended. On the consent of the accused for search before a gazetted officer, DSP Charanjit Singh on being called through wireless message, reached at the spot. Thereafter, on the direction of the DSP, searched the bag of the accused which led to the recovery of 10 kgs of poppy husk. Two samples weighing 250 grams each poppy husk was separated. Samples and remaining poppy husk were sealed separately and taken into possession. Ruqa Ex.PD was sent to the police station, on the basis of which, formal FIR Ex.PD/1 was recorded. Rough site plan was prepared. Thereafter, challan was presented in Court. Finding a prima facie case against the appellant, he was charge-sheeted to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined PW1 ASI Balbir Singh, PW2 Inspector Harbans Singh, PW3 ASI Sadha Singh, PW4 HC Harmeet Singh, PW5 Const. Kehar Singh, PW6 HC Ashok Kumar and PW7 DSP Charan Singh and giving up PW Sohan Singh, being won over, and has closed its evidence. 5. 4. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined PW1 ASI Balbir Singh, PW2 Inspector Harbans Singh, PW3 ASI Sadha Singh, PW4 HC Harmeet Singh, PW5 Const. Kehar Singh, PW6 HC Ashok Kumar and PW7 DSP Charan Singh and giving up PW Sohan Singh, being won over, and has closed its evidence. 5. Thereafter, when the accused examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. All the incriminating circumstances were put to him. He denied the same and pleaded innocence. However, in his defence, he tendered into evidence a certified copy of judgment dated 13.01.2003 (Ex.D1), a certified copy of FIR No.53 dated 11.09.2000 (Ex.D2), a certified copy of statement of HC Hans Raj (Ex.D3) and a certified copy of statement of ASI Sukhdev Singh (Ex.D4). 6. The learned Trial Court, after trial, convicted and sentenced the accused as aforesaid. Hence, this appeal. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, as well as, the learned State counsel. 8. At this stage, it may be noticed that out of the maximum substantive sentence of two years awarded under Section 15 of the NDPS Act, the accused-appellant, as per the custody certificate furnished by the learned State counsel, has already undergone a period of 9 months and four days. 9. On being confronted with the quality of evidence available on the record, which is cogent and convincing and leads to no other conclusion but the conviction of the appellant, learned counsel for the appellant submits that he will not be able to successfully challenge the conviction of the appellant. However, he prays that the sentence of the appellant be suitably reduced as this criminal trial is hanging on his head like Damocles’ sword for the last about twelve years and it should be a sufficient mitigating circumstance to treat him leniently. Counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the occurrence pertains to the year 2000 and since then a period of about twelve years has elapsed. The appellant has suffered the ordeal for a long period. 10. In view of the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant, which have been noticed above, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose will be served by sending the appellant behind the bars for serving remaining sentence at this point of time. The appellant has suffered the ordeal for a long period. 10. In view of the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant, which have been noticed above, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose will be served by sending the appellant behind the bars for serving remaining sentence at this point of time. It is a fit case wherein the sentence awarded to the appellant can be reduced to the period already undergone. Ordered accordingly. However, sentence of fine and default clause shall remain intact. 11. With the observations made above, present appeal is disposed of. ---------0.B.S.0------------