Judgment S.K. Mishra, J. In this appeal the appellant assails the judgment and sentence dated 21.6.2014 passed by learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar in T.R. Case No.85/2004 convicting him under Section 15(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act” for brevity) and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- in default to undergo R.I. for a further period of two years. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 12.8.2004 at 7.30 P.M. the then I.I.C. of Nayapalli Police Station, Sri Raja Kishore Paikaray (P.W.3), received an anonymous telephone call at the police station that one unknown person got down from a Baramunda bound bus at the Fire Training Centre Square and suspected to be in possession of poppy straw. On receipt of the information P.W.3 entered the same in the station diary and intimated the S.P., Khurda over telephone and also in writing and requested the S.P., Khurda to depute a Gazetted Officer to the spot. Thereafter P.W.3 along with S.I. Satyajit Mishra (P.W.9), S.I. H.Khan and A.S.I. U.K. Sahoo (P.W.8) proceeded to the spot and on arrival at the spot they found the accused standing with four gunny bags kept near him. Thereafter they surrounded the accused and after arrival of the D.S.P. Sri D.N. Satapathy (P.W.1), P.W.3 obtained the consent of the accused to be searched in presence of a Gazetted Officer and on search poppy straw was found inside the four bags kept near the accused. S.I. H.Khan was deputed to bring one weigh man and the materials for sealing and one weigh man Ashok Mohapatra (P.W.4) arrived at the spot along with the weighing materials. The poppy straw containing in those four bags were weighed by P.W.4 and the total weight was found to be 69.5 kgs. The two sample packets from each bag each weighing 100 grams were collected and the main bulk as well as the sample packets were sealed by using the personal seal of P.W.3 and paper slips containing the signatures of the witnesses, accused and other police officers were affixed on each of the four main bulks and 8 sample packets. The two sample packets from each bag each weighing 100 grams were collected and the main bulk as well as the sample packets were sealed by using the personal seal of P.W.3 and paper slips containing the signatures of the witnesses, accused and other police officers were affixed on each of the four main bulks and 8 sample packets. The four gunny bags (M.Os.1 to IV) and the 8 sample packets (M.Os.V to XII) were seized in presence of the witnesses and a copy of the seizure list was made over to the accused. The brass seal in which the articles were sealed was released in zima of witness Ramesh Chandra Sahoo (P.W.2). P.W.3 drew up plain paper F.I.R. at the spot and directed S.I. Satyajit Mishra (P.W.9) to take up investigation. 3. During course of investigation S.I. Satyajit Mishra examined the witnesses at the spot, arrested the accused and brought the accused along with the seized property to the Police Station and kept the seized property in the Police Station Malkhana. On the next day, i.e. on 13.8.2004 he produced the accused in the Court along with the seized property with a prayer to draw samples to be sent for chemical examination. Accordingly, the S.D.J.M. was directed to collect the samples from the seized bags and the sample packets were forwarded to the State F.S.L., Bhubaneswar by the S.D.J.M. for chemical examination under forwarding letter. On the same day the I.O. sent a detailed report regarding search, seizure and arrest to the S.P., Khurda at Bhubaneswar. He also seized the P.S. Malkhana Register and Station Diary book containing the relevant entry made by P.W.3 and has released the Station Diary and Malkhana Register in the zima of the I.I.C. He has also seized the extract of station diary entry sent by P.W.3 to the S.P., Khurda from the office of the S.P., Khurda at Bhubaneswar. He has also received the copy of the chemical examination report. After completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted against the accused on 5.10.2004 under Section 15(c) of the Act. 4. The defence plea is complete denial of the occurrence and false implication. 5. To prove the case against the case against the accused, the prosecution has examined as many as nine witnesses. After completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted against the accused on 5.10.2004 under Section 15(c) of the Act. 4. The defence plea is complete denial of the occurrence and false implication. 5. To prove the case against the case against the accused, the prosecution has examined as many as nine witnesses. Out of whom P.W.3 is Raj Kishore Paikaray, the then I.I.C. of Nayapalli Police Station and P.W.1 is Debendra Nath Satapathy, the then D.S.P. (Accounts), Khurda. P.W.8 is S.I. Umakanta Sahoo, a witness to the search and seizure of poppy straw and P.Ws.6 and 7 are constables Banamali Nayak and Gandhi Dalei, the witnesses to the seizure of the documents by the I.O. during course of investigation. P.W.2 is Ramesh Chandra Sahoo and P.W.4 is the weigh man Ashok Kumar Mohapatra and P.W.5 is Sanatan Rout, who have all turned hostile to the prosecution. P.W.9 is S.I. Satyajit Mishra, who has investigated into the case. 6. The defence has also examined Raghubar Das, Laxmidhar Padhiari and Sk. Rahim, who are cited as witnesses for the prosecution in the charge sheet. D.W.4 is Narottam Kahalsingh, the driver of the Jeep of P.W.1. 7. Taking into consideration the evidence of the witnesses, the learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Khurda has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved that the appellant was in possession of the poppy straw weighing 69.5 kgs. and held that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt and convicted the appellant as aforesaid. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant relying upon the reported cases of Anadi Charan Parida V. State; (1997) 12 OCR-268 and Bata Krushna Sahu V. State of Orissa; (2010) 45 OCR-606 argued that the prosecution has not proved the conscious and exclusive possession of the contraband articles by the appellant and hence the conviction requires to be set aside. 9. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant relying upon the reported cases of Anadi Charan Parida V. State; (1997) 12 OCR-268 and Bata Krushna Sahu V. State of Orissa; (2010) 45 OCR-606 argued that the prosecution has not proved the conscious and exclusive possession of the contraband articles by the appellant and hence the conviction requires to be set aside. 9. However, examination of the judgment reveals that in the case of Bata Krushna Sahu V. State of Orissa (supra) and in the case of Anadi Charan Parida V. State (supra) the accused were convicted for possessing the contraband articles, which were found inside the house and it was not proved that the appellants were in exclusive and conscious possession of the contraband in view of the evidence led on behalf of the prosecution that the house stood recorded in the name of several others in one case and in the other case there was no evidence of the accused possessing the house in question. So the aforesaid citations are of no help to the present case. 10. In the alternative, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the sentence imposes is excessive and the appellant should be leniently dealt with. Section 15 of the Act provides for punishment for contravention in relation to poppy straw. Clause (c) of Section 15 of the Act provides that where the contravention involves commercial quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to twenty years and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees but which may extend to two lakh rupees. It is further provided that the court may, for reasons to be recorded in the judgment impose a fine exceeding two lakhs rupees. 11. Learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Khurda has given the minimum sentence of R.I. for ten years and fine of Rs.1,00,000/-. So that cannot be modified in any manner. However, there is no minimum prescribed sentence in default of payment of fine. It is borne out from the record that the appellant has undergone ten years of imprisonment and this Court is of the opinion that if the default sentence is reduced to one month the interest of justice shall be sub-served. However, there is no minimum prescribed sentence in default of payment of fine. It is borne out from the record that the appellant has undergone ten years of imprisonment and this Court is of the opinion that if the default sentence is reduced to one month the interest of justice shall be sub-served. Hence, the appeal is disposed of confirming the conviction of the accused and the substantive sentence and fine imposed by the learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Khurda. However, it is further directed that in case of default of payment of fine, the appellant shall suffer further R.I. for a period of one month. S.C. Parija, J. : I agree.