JUDGMENT Mr. K.C. Puri, J.(Oral) - Accused-appellant Kala has directed the present appeal against the judgment and order dated 30.9.2014 passed by Shri Purushottam Kumar, Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, vide which accused-appellant was convicted under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short – ‘the NDPS Act’) and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months. 2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 14.2.2013 Police party headed by Sh. Ram was present at Fawara Chowk, Hisar in connection with patrol and detection of crime duty and in the meantime, a secret informer met the police party and informed that one person traveling in a bus bearing No. RJ-10-PA-1751 which was coming from Rajgarh to Hisar was having a chura post and if the search of the said bus is conducted then that person could be apprehended along with chura post. On the basis of secret information, the police party reached the police barrier, Rajgarh road and got stopped the aforesaid bus and the search of the said bus was conducted. During the search of the bus, one person who was having a plastic bag in his hand tried to alight from the bus and as such he was apprehended by the police party on suspicion of having narcotic substance in his possession and on interrogation he disclosed his name as Kala son of Babu Singh, resident of Ubba District Mansa. He was served with notice apprising him of his right to be searched before a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. However, accused reposed faith in the investigating officer and offered to be searched by him. Thereafter, the search of the bag was conducted in accordance with the provisions of the NDPS Act and 1 kgs 500 gms of chura post was recovered from the bag. Two samples of 100 gms each were separated and converted into separate parcels. Sample parcels and residue were sealed with seal ‘BS’ and seal after use was handed over to EHC Hans Raj. All the three parcels were taken into possession. A ruqqa was sent to the Police Station through Constable Rajesh on the basis of which formal FIR was recorded. Sample parcels and residue were sealed with seal ‘BS’ and seal after use was handed over to EHC Hans Raj. All the three parcels were taken into possession. A ruqqa was sent to the Police Station through Constable Rajesh on the basis of which formal FIR was recorded. After completion of necessary investigation, challan against the accused was presented. 3. Copies of documents as relied upon by the prosecution were supplied to the accused under Section 207 Cr.P.C. 4. Charge under Section 15 of the NDPS Act was framed against the accused to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined PW-1 ASI Vijay Pal, PW-2 SI Sohan Singh, PW-3 EHC Sahab Ram, PW-4 SI Shamsher Singh, PW-5 DSP Satyapal, PW-6 EHC Hans Raj, PW-7 SI Shri Ram and closed the evidence. 6. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C and all the incriminating circumstances were put to accused to which he denied and pleaded false implication. 7. The accused was called upon to lead defence evidence. The accused did not lead any evidence in defence. 8. The trial Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties convicted and sentenced the accused vide judgment and order dated 30.9.2014, as stated aforesaid. 9. Feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order dated 30.9.2014, the present appeal has been directed. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case with their able assistance. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant has not challenged the conviction but has submitted that only 1 ½ kgs of chura post is stated to have been recovered from the appellant without any licence or permit. The said quantity is covered by small quantity. The appellant has already undergone incarceration for a period of 2 months and 22 days out of the substantive sentence of 1 year awarded by the trial Court. He is not a previous convict nor involved in any other case. It is also contended that the appellant has been facing trial for the last more than one and a half years. So, prayer has been made for taking a lenient view regarding quantum of sentence. 12. The prayer has been opposed by learned State counsel. 13. He is not a previous convict nor involved in any other case. It is also contended that the appellant has been facing trial for the last more than one and a half years. So, prayer has been made for taking a lenient view regarding quantum of sentence. 12. The prayer has been opposed by learned State counsel. 13. I have considered the said submissions and gone through the record of the case. 14. Although, counsel for the appellant has not challenged the conviction but since this is first appeal, I have myself gone through the record of the case. The mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act seems to have been complied with. There is nothing unusual in the prosecution story. The accused was apprehended with 1 ½ kgs chura post and there was no reason to falsely implicate the accused. Consequently, the conviction recorded by the trial Court under Section 15 of the NDPS Act stands affirmed. 15. Now, reverting to the quantum of sentence, the quantity recovered from the appellant falls within the small quantity. The appellant is not a previous convict and has already undergone incarceration for a period of 2 months and 22 days. So, considering all these circumstances, the sentence of the appellant stands reduced to the period already undergone. However, the sentence of find stands affirmed. 16. The appellant is stated to be in custody. He be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. 17. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. 18. A copy of this judgment be sent to the concerned quarter for compliance. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————