JUDGMENT : S.K. Mishra, J. 1. In this appeal the Appellant assails the Judgment dated 5.2.2009 passed by Learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Jajpur in G.R. Case No. 835/2004 convicting him under Section 21(c) of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act" for brevity) & sentencing him to undergo R1. for twelve years & to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000, in default of payment of fine, he is to undergo R.I. for six months. The prosecution case in short is that on 23.8.2004 one Krushna Chandra Palei was attached to Bayree Out Post as an S.I. of Police. On that date, he was camping at Chhatia. At about 5.30 A.M., he received an information regarding sale & storage of brown sugar by the accused in his house at Chuapadia. The said S.I. of Police reflected this information in the station dairy of Chhatia Beat House vide Entry No. 340 dated 23.8.2004. Then he send a written information as per Ext. 25 in this regard to the I.I.C. of Badachana P.S., who was his immediate superior Officer & requested him over phone to depute sufficient staff including a woman constable for further action. On arrival of police staff, the S.I. proceeded to the spot with two independent witnesses. He explained the independent witnesses about the purpose of their visit. 2. The Police reached the house of the accused at 6.30 A.M. Being called, the accused & his parents came out of the house. The S.I. introduced himself, the accompanying police staff & independent witnesses to the accused & his parents & expressed his intention to search their house as he had information regarding storage of brown sugar. The accused was given an option for search of his house in presence of an Executive Magistrate or a Gazette Officer, vide Ext. 13. The accused extended his consent for search of his house in presence of an Executive Magistrate, vide Ext. 14. Accordingly, the S.I. send requisition to the Sub-Collector, Jajpur through a Special Messenger for deputation of an Executive Magistrate to the spot, vide Ext. 26. At 12.30 noon, the Executive Magistrate arrived there. He was introduced the accused. After observing all paraphernalia, the house of the accused was searched. On search, three polythene packets were recovered from below the bed of the accused. 26. At 12.30 noon, the Executive Magistrate arrived there. He was introduced the accused. After observing all paraphernalia, the house of the accused was searched. On search, three polythene packets were recovered from below the bed of the accused. Out of those three polythene bags, one was containing brownish white powder, the second was containing white colour powder & the third one was containing gray colour powder. 3. Suspecting that, the abovesaid packets were containing brown sugar, the S.I. called a goldsmith, namely Parsuram Nayak. On weighment of the polythene packets, the weights thereof were found to be of 62 grams, 200 grams & 485 grams respectively. Two samples of five grams each were collected from each of the aforesaid three packets & kept in separate polythene covers. The samples as well as the bulk amount of brown sugar were kept in polythene packets & closed by heat treatment. The witnesses, goldsmith, the accused, the Executive Magistrate & the S.I. of Police put their signatures on each of the sample packets & the packets containing bulk amount & sealed the same with the impression of his personal brass seal. The specimen seal impression was kept in a closed cover, sealed & signed by the above persons. Thereafter, he left the brass seal in zima of the independent witness, namely Bhramarbara Biswal. 4. Since the accused could not explain anything regarding his exclusive possession of the brown sugar as stated above, the S.I. of Police lodged a plain paper F.I.R. addressed to the I.I.C. of Badachana P.S. as per Ext. 27. Basing on the F.I.R., investigation was taken up. During course of investigation, the samples of the seized brown sugar & the specimen seal impression were sent through the Court to the Director of Chemical Examiner, Government of Odisha, SFSL, Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar for chemical examination & report under Ext. 42. On examination of the sample, it was opined by the Chemical Examiner that the samples were containing heroin. After completion of investigation, finding a prima facie case under Section 21(c) of the Act, the Investigating Officer has submitted charge sheet against the accused. Accordingly, the accused was sent up for trial before the Special Judge. 5. The accused took the plea of denial of prosecution allegation & stated that he has been falsely implicating in this case. 6. In order to establish its case the prosecution examined fifteen witnesses. Accordingly, the accused was sent up for trial before the Special Judge. 5. The accused took the plea of denial of prosecution allegation & stated that he has been falsely implicating in this case. 6. In order to establish its case the prosecution examined fifteen witnesses. P.W.13, Krushna Chandra Palei, the informant of the cased. P.W.1, Govinda Chandra Sahu, is the Executive Magistrate in whose presence search & seizure was effected. P.W.3, Parsuram Nayak, is the goldsmith, who has taken weighment of the seized powder. P.W.3, Sahadeb Pradhan, & P.W.4, Bhramarbar Biswal, are the independent seizure witnesses. P.W.5, Trinath Paltasingh & P.W.6 Krushna Chandra Das, are the A.S. Is of Police, P.W.7, Prasanta Kumar Das, P.W.8, Nirod Ch. Swain, P.W.9, Basanta Kumar Nanda, & P.W.10, Chittaranjan Jena, are the police constables. P.W.11, Debadutta Nayak, & P.W.12, Hrusikesh Nanda, are independent witnesses. P.W.14, Arjun Barik, & P.W.15, Paramananda Sahu, are the Investigating Officers. 7. On behalf of the prosecution fifteen witnesses were examined & also exhibited 46 documents & eleven material objects. The defence, on the other hand, neither examined any witness nor exhibited any document on its behalf. 8. After taking into consideration the evidence led by the prosecution having a detailed discussion of the materials on record, the Learned Special Judge, Jajpur came to the conclusion that the prosecution has proves its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the present Appellant &, therefore, convicted the accused by exercising powers under Section 235(2) of the Cr.P.C. for the offence under Section 21(c) of the Act. 9. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant, in course of hearing, contended that the Appellant could not have been convicted for the offence of possession of heroin as the materials were seized from the house which is jointly inhabited by several persons. Alternatively, it is argued that the sentence imposed in the case is excessive keeping in view the fact that the accused is first offender & the Learned Counsel, therefore, contended that the accused should have been awarded a lesser sentence. 10. Learned Addl. Government Advocate, on the other hand, supported the findings recorded by the Learned Special Judge & contended that the sentence imposed is just & proper. Hence he prayed to dismiss the appeal. 11. It is apparent from the evidence of P.W.1 that he happened to be the Executive Magistrate-cum-Addl. Tahasildar at the relevant time. 10. Learned Addl. Government Advocate, on the other hand, supported the findings recorded by the Learned Special Judge & contended that the sentence imposed is just & proper. Hence he prayed to dismiss the appeal. 11. It is apparent from the evidence of P.W.1 that he happened to be the Executive Magistrate-cum-Addl. Tahasildar at the relevant time. He proceeded to the house of accused-Chanda @ Manoj Kumar Sahu where he found the police officers were present with some other outsiders. The accused was present at his house. His identity was disclosed to the accused by the Police personnel. The accused agreed for search of the house being conducted in presence of the witness. In presence of the witness accused took the personal search of all the police personnel, who entered inside the house of the accused for search. It is further seen that inside the bed room of the accused, which situated to the south-west corner of the house, a cot was found lying. From underneath the bedsheet of the cot three poly thin packets were recovered by the police officer. The other rooms of the house was searched but nothing was recovered by the raiding party. This fact is corroborated by other witnesses. It is apparent from the record that the seized contrabands were found in the bed of the accused, which was lying inside his bed room & underneath the bedsheet. So the conscious & exclusive possession of the accused is proved in this case. Hence there is hardly any scope for interference with the findings recorded by the Learned Special Judge. Therefore his first contention of the Learned Counsel for the is not acceptable. 12. As far as the second contention is concerned, it is seen that the Petitioner is a first offender. He was about 22 years old at the time of seizure. Section 21 of the Act provides for punishment for contravention in relation to manufactured drugs & preparation. Section 21(c) of the Act provides that where the contravention involves commercial quantity, the offender shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to twenty years & shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees but which may extend to two lakh rupees. The Appellant is an inhabitant of a backward village. The Appellant is an inhabitant of a backward village. He is also in custody, for about ten years. His prime youth has already been spent behind bars. So this Court is of the opinion that the sentenced should be reduced to the minimum. Accordingly, the sentence imposed by the Learned Special Judge is modified to the extent that Appellant shall undergo R.I. for a period of ten years & pay fine of Rs. 1,00,000 (Rupees one lakh), in default of payment of fine he shall undergo R.I. for one month. With such modification of sentence the CRLA is allowed in part.