JUDGMENT 1. - This Appeal has been filed against the Order dated 26.3.2011 passed by learned Single Judge, NDPS Cases, Ajmer in Sessions Case No. 14/2009. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 21.3.2009, PW-2 Pramod Swami, S.H.O., received a secret information from Vijay Singh as also Biram Dev, whereby it was informed that a boy was standing at GCA Crossing who had a black bag of raggine in which he was having contraband of 'charas'. On the basis of said information, police reached at the place of incident. Taking above action, police has intimated to accused person under Section 50 of the Act and started search lorn the accused appellant. The police recovered the contraband of 'charas' which was found in a plastic bag. Thereafter case was registered under Section 8/20 of the NDPS Act. After investigation, police submitted a charge-sheet before the Trial Court, and later on trial was commenced, and Trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant vide impugned Order dated 26.3.2011. 3. Against the said impugned Order dated 26.3.2011, this appeal has been preferred. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant has contended that the finding arrived at by the Trial Court are perverse, against the material available on record, and contrary to the evidence produced by the prosecution. Hence, impugned judgment and order deserves to be quashed and set aside. It is also contended that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts and there are major contradictions and omissions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. It has also been contended that the appellant is in judicial lock up since long and he is young boy. 5. In the alternate, at this stage, learned Counsel for the appellant has requested to this Court that the sentence awarded to the accused-appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him in custody. In support of his submission, he has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in T. Thomson v. State of Kerala, (2002) 9 SCC 618 , and drawn attention of this Court towards Para No. 7, which is reproduced as under : "7. For the aforesaid reasons we are not inclined to disturb the finding on facts nor the conviction imposed on the appellants. For the aforesaid reasons we are not inclined to disturb the finding on facts nor the conviction imposed on the appellants. However, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants made a plea for reducing the sentence to the minimum period prescribed for the offence. The reason advanced by the Counsel in support of the aforesaid plea is mainly that the narcotic drug (brown sugar) was only 506 gms and such a quantity does not warrant a sentence of such a harsh dimension. In the peculiar circumstances of these cases we are also of the view that the sentence can be limited to the minimum period prescribed under the provisions. We, therefore, reduce the sentence to RI for 10 years and a fine of Rs. 1 lakh under Section 21 of the Act for all the appellants. Regarding the offence under Section 25 in respect of the first accused Thomson also we reduce it to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and a fine of Rs. 1 lakh. We direct the sentences for the aforesaid two counts to run concurrently as for the first accused. In default of payment of fine the appellants shall undergo imprisonment for a further period of one year." 6. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the same, and contended that neither sentence awarded to the accused appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him in custody, nor accused-appellant may be acquitted of the offence levelled against him. 7. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record as also impugned order. 8. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I think it just and proper to reduce the sentence of the appellant from 11 years to ten years. 9. In the result, this Appeal is partly allowed with the following directions: (i) Impugned Order dated 26.3.2011 is modified to the extent that the sentence awarded to the accused appellant be reduced from 11 years to 10(ten) years. (ii) Conviction passed against the appellant be maintained. (iii) Rest of the terms of impugned order shall remain unchanged. Appeal Partly Allowed. *******