JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. 1. Through the instant appeal the State of Himachal Pradesh concerts before this Court qua the sentence imposed upon the convict/accused holding no commensuration vis-à-vis the gravity of the offence for which he stood convicted. Consequently, in the instant appeal a prayer stands canvassed qua the minimal sentence imposed upon the convict/accused for his committing an offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Act warranting its standing enhanced. 2. Given the limited prayer aforesaid urged in the instant appeal preferred herebefore by the State of Himachal Pradesh enjoins this Court to, from the relevant incriminatory circumstances relied upon by the learned trial Court for recording an order of conviction against the accused, cull out therefrom besides from the attending material qua the consequent sentence imposed upon the accused/convict warranting interference. 3. Dehors the sustainable incriminatory evidence vis-à-vis the accused/convict, the predominant fact of his holding conscious and exclusive possession of a minimal quantity of 450 grams of charas, resin content wherein was 136 grams, per se renders the sentence of imprisonment of two years imposed upon him by the learned trial Court to not suffer from any vice of legal invalidation. Even if a sentence higher than the sentence of imprisonment aforesaid imposed upon the convict/accused by the learned trial Court is legally imposable upon the accused/convict also any laxity in imposition upon him of the highest quantum of a term of imprisonment for the charge qua which he stood convicted would depart from the solemn duty of this Court to keep society free from the menace of proliferation of contraband. However, when the prescription by the legislature qua the imposition of a maximum sentence of 10 years imprisonment upon a convict/accused on his found to be holding possession of charas in a quantum less than commercial quantity is not a peremptory prescription rather is discretionary especially when the prescription therein of a sentence of imprisonment of 10 years on facet aforesaid being imposable upon the convict/accused stands preceded by the word ‘may’, coinage whereof holds a parlance of a maximum sentence of imprisonment of 10 years warranting relaxation, if the attendant circumstances permit relaxation of its rigor to a term lesser than 10 years. In sequel with the legislature not holding a peremptory mandate upon courts of law qua imposition of sentence of imprisonment of 10 years upon convict/accused found guilty of committing an offence arising from his holding a quantum less than a commercial quantity of contraband, as, is the quantum borne by the contraband seized from the accused/convict, leans this Court to hold a view of the sentence of imprisonment of two years imposed upon the accused/convict by the learned trial Court not warranting any interference. Also when the preponderant attending circumstance qua the source of the minimal quantity of 450 grams charas held by the accused/convict stands uninvestigated by the Investigating Officer coaxes an inference of the accused/convict holding it merely as a carrier deployed by drug warlords operating in the area concerned who rather stood enjoined to be nabbed by the Investigating Officer for hence efficaciously curbing the menace of proliferation of contraband in society. Omission of the Investigating Officer to unearth the source of the minimal quantity of charas seized from the accused does fillip an inference of the convict/accused not warranting imposition upon him the sentence of imprisonment higher than the one imposed upon him. Prominently it constitutes a vigorous relevant attending circumstance for relaxing the rigour of the mandate of the apposite provisions of law prescribing the maximum sentence of imprisonment imposable upon the accused/convict. Consequently, the relevant omission aforesaid of the Investigating Officer forestalls the State to earn a conclusion from this Court of the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon him warranting enhancement. 4. This Court deprecates omissions on the part of the Investigating Officer to investigate the source of the item of contraband recovered from the possession of its carrier i.e. the accused/convict. The Director General of Police is directed to ensure of all Investigating Officers concerned whensoever seize any item of contraband from the conscious and exclusive possession of its holder theirs proceeding to uncover evidence qua the source wherefrom it emanated. 5. In view of the above, we find no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. In sequel, the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the accused/convict by the learned trial Court is affirmed and maintained. Record of the learned trial Court be sent back forthwith.