JUDGMENT : Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. Dev Kumar, a Nepali National (hereinafter referred to as the accused), who has been convicted by learned Special Judge, Kinnaur Sessions Division at Rampur Bushahr, District Shimla, vide judgment dated 02.07.2016, passed in Sessions Trial No.0000014/2015, under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act in short) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and in default to pay the fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of two years, has approached this Court by filing the present appeal for quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment on the grounds, inter-alia, that learned trial Court has based its findings on surmises and conjunctures and thereby caused miscarriage of justice to him. The conviction of the accused allegedly is based on wrong appreciation of the prosecution evidence. The contradictory version of the prosecution witnesses none-else, but the police officials has been given undue weightage. The prosecution case allegedly suffers from various procedural irregularities such as non-compliance of mandatory provisions contained under Sections 42 and 50 of the Act. The search and seizure is not witnessed by reliable and independent witnesses being not associated by the Investigating Officer to the reasons best known to him, though were very much available. The specimen of seal was neither sent to Forensic Science Laboratory nor produced in the Court. Withholding of such material evidence would lead to the presumption envisaged under Section 114(g) of Indian Evidence Act that had the same been produced would have been unfavourable to the prosecution case. In view of the evidence produced by the prosecution, two possible views emerge on record and in such a situation, the view favourable to the accused has to be relied upon and the benefit of doubt given to the accused. 2. Whether the grounds, as raised in the memorandum of appeal, carry substance or not and the impugned judgment is not legally and factually sustainable, need reappraisal of the given facts and circumstances and also the evidence available on record. The prosecution case as disclosed from the record, is that on 10.05.2015, around 04.30 p.m., the police of Police Station, Jhakri, Tehsil Rampur Bushahr, District Shimla, formed a party to patrol in Rattanpur, Majhewali, Shah & Dofda side. The prosecution case as disclosed from the record, is that on 10.05.2015, around 04.30 p.m., the police of Police Station, Jhakri, Tehsil Rampur Bushahr, District Shimla, formed a party to patrol in Rattanpur, Majhewali, Shah & Dofda side. The police party was headed by PW-10 ASI Sher Singh Negi. Its other members were HHC Inder Singh (PW-1), Constable Rajesh Kumar (PW-2) and Constable Roshan Lal. A Rapat which is Ext.PW-6/A to this effect was entered in daily diary. The police party proceeded for patrolling in official vehicle No.HP-02-0788. Around 05.30 p.m., the police party while near Explosive Magazine Technology House Private Limited at Rattanpur-Majhewali road, the accused was spotted coming to the main road through a link road. He was going towards Majhewali side. He was having a backpack (Pithu) on his right shoulder. On seeing the police vehicle, the accused became nervous and he started running on road side. PW-10 Sher Singh Negi had overpowered him with the assistance of accompanying police officials as the place being a secluded and lonely place, no one was present nearby, therefore, HHC Inder Singh (PW-1) and Constable Roshan Lal, were associated as witnesses. It is in their presence, the material being carried in backpack, which the accused was carrying on his right shoulder, was checked and charas in the shape of sticks Ext.P-4 (29 sticks) and in the shape of pancake (8 pieces), was recovered from its inner pocket. On inquiry, the accused disclosed his antecedent to PW-10 Sher Singh Negi. PW-2 Constable Rajesh Kumar was deputed in search of witnesses and also to procure a weighing scale. He though brought an electronic weighing scale from the shop of Ram Chander Negi (PW-3) of village Rattanpur, however, informed the Investigating Officer that no one was available who could have been brought to the spot for being associated as an independent witness. The charas was weighed in presence of police officials and it was found 1 kg. 80 grams. The same was sealed in a cloth parcel (Ext.P-3) with eight impressions of seal ‘H’. The currency notes worth Rs.10,000/- (Ext.P-6) in the denomination of 100x96 and 50x8, were recovered from the outer pocket of backpack (Ext.P-2). The same were also sealed in a cloth parcel (Ext.P-5) with six impressions of seal ‘H’. 80 grams. The same was sealed in a cloth parcel (Ext.P-3) with eight impressions of seal ‘H’. The currency notes worth Rs.10,000/- (Ext.P-6) in the denomination of 100x96 and 50x8, were recovered from the outer pocket of backpack (Ext.P-2). The same were also sealed in a cloth parcel (Ext.P-5) with six impressions of seal ‘H’. The parcel Ext.P-4 was again put back in the backpack Ext.P-2 and sealed in a cloth parcel Ext.P-1 with six impressions of seal ‘H’. The impression of seal ‘H’ Ext.PW-1/B was taken separately for sample. NCB-1 form Ext.PW-7/C was filled in triplicate at the spot. The seal was handed over to HHC Inder Singh. 3. The recovered charas was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ext.PW-1/A. A copy thereof was supplied to the accused free of costs under his signatures on taking a receipt thereof. It is thereafter Rukka Ext.PW-10/A prepared and handed over to PW-2 Constable Rajesh Kumar with a direction to carry the same to Police Station for registration of the case. PW-2 Constable Rajesh Kumar handed over the Rukka to S.I./S.H.O. Tara Chand (since dead), who recorded the FIR Ext.PW-10/D. During further investigation of the spot, PW-10 had prepared site plan Ext.PW-10/B and also taken photographs of the spot Ext.PW-5/A-1 to Ext.PW-5/A-3. The other photographs Ext.PW-5/A-2, Ext.PW-5/A-6 were clicked by Constable Rajesh Kumar PW-2. All the photographs were got developed from PW-5 Mastan Singh, a local photographer at Jhakri. The certificate Ext.PW-10/F qua generation of the photographs through the official digital camera of Police Station, Jhakri, was also obtained. 4. On completion of the investigation on the spot and finding the accused having committed an offence punishable under Section 20 of the Act, he was arrested and arrest memo was prepared. The Investigating Officer returned to the Police Station around 09.00 p.m. as per entry in daily diary Ext.PW-6/B. He produced the accused and also case property before SI/SHO Tara Singh. The SI/SHO re-sealed the parcel containing the case property with seal ‘A’ and handed over the same to PW-7 HC Ramesh Chand, the then MHC, Police Station, Jhakri, alongwith sample of seals ‘H’ & ‘A’, NCB-1 form in triplicate and recovery memo as well as the parcel containing the currency notes for safe custody in the Malkhana. The sample of seal ‘A’ was obtained separately. The SHO also filled in column No.9 to 11 of NCB form. The sample of seal ‘A’ was obtained separately. The SHO also filled in column No.9 to 11 of NCB form. The memo qua resealing of Ext.PW-6/C was also prepared. The information qua assets of the accused was given to his maternal uncle Vinod as is apparent from Rapat Daily Diary Ext.PW-6/D. PW-7 HC Ramesh Chand entered the case property in Malkhana Register at Sr. No.18 vide entries Ext.PW-7/A and retained the same in his safe custody in the Malkhana. On 12.05.2015, PW-7 HC Ramesh Chand forwarded the case property alongwith NCB form in triplicate, sample of seals ‘H’ & ‘A’, copy of seizure memo and copy of FIR, to Forensic Science Laboratory, Junga, for analysis through PW-4 Constable Pradeep Kumar, with a direction to carry the said articles to the laboratory in safe custody. The R.C. is Ext.PW-7/B. Rapat Ext.PW-6/A in the daily diary, was also entered in this regard. PW-4 Constable Pradeep Kumar deposited all the articles in safe custody in the laboratory and returned the receipt to PW-7 on his return to the Police Station. The special report was also prepared by the Investigating Officer which was handed over to PW-9 LHC Vikas Sood, with a direction to hand over the same to SDPO Rampur. A Rapat to this effect Ext.PW-6/F was made in the daily diary. PW- 9 LHC Vikas Sood handed over the special report to PW-8 HC Tara Chand, Reader to SDPO Rampur, on the same day. The SDPO Mr. Som Dutt, on perusal of the same, made endorsement on the special report and handed over the same to his Reader for making an entry in the relevant Register. The copy of the entry is Ext.PW-8/A. The report Ext.PX was received from Forensic Science Laboratory, Junga. The Rapats in daily diary Ext.Pw-6/B to Ext.PW-6/F and Ext.PW-7/D-1 to Ext.PW-7/D-10, were also relied upon against the accused. 5. On completion of the investigation, final report was filed in the Court of learned Special Judge, Kinnaur at Rampur Bushahr. Learned Special Judge, on appreciation of the report and documents annexed thereto and on hearing learned Public Prosecutor as well as defence counsel, found a prima-facie case under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, made out against the accused. The charge against him was framed accordingly. Learned Special Judge, on appreciation of the report and documents annexed thereto and on hearing learned Public Prosecutor as well as defence counsel, found a prima-facie case under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, made out against the accused. The charge against him was framed accordingly. The accused, however, pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial, therefore, the prosecution in support of its case had examined 10 witnesses in all. 6. As noticed (supra) no independent person has been associated as a witness in the case in hand. The material prosecution witnesses, as such, are the Investigating Officer (PW- 10), HHC Inder Singh (PW-1) and also Constable Rajesh Kumar (PW-2), The remaining prosecution witness PW-3 Ram Chander Negi, has been associated during the investigation of the case to prove that electronic weighing scale was brought by Constable Rajesh Kumar from his shop. The remaining prosecution witnesses are again police officials, who remained associated during the investigation of the case in one way or other. The evidence as has come on record by way of their testimonies, can be used as link evidence. 7. Mr. Anup Chitkara, Advocate, learned counsel representing the accused, while taking us to the evidence produced by the prosecution has mainly emphasized that the testimonies of official witnesses being not consistent and rather contradictory in nature could have not been at all made the basis for recording findings of conviction against the accused. Also that when independent persons were available, non-joining them as witnesses to witness the search and seizure, has casted cloud on the entire prosecution story. The present being not a case of non-availability of independent witnesses, joining of only official witnesses to witness the search and seizure and placing reliance on their testimonies, render the findings of conviction and sentence recorded against the accused, as highly illegal. It is also argued that as per the law laid down by the apex Court, the default sentence should have not been two years simple imprisonment as the same accordingly to Mr. Chitkara, cannot exceed six months. It is further urged that in view of two possible views having emerged on record, the benefit of doubt should have been given to the accused. 8. On the other hand, Mr. D.S. Nainta, Additional Advocate General, assisted by Mr. M.A. Khan and Mr. Chitkara, cannot exceed six months. It is further urged that in view of two possible views having emerged on record, the benefit of doubt should have been given to the accused. 8. On the other hand, Mr. D.S. Nainta, Additional Advocate General, assisted by Mr. M.A. Khan and Mr. Virender Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, has supported the impugned judgment as according to him the findings of conviction have been recorded by learned trial Court on appreciation of the evidence available on record in its right perspective. The testimony of official witnesses which according to learned Additional Advocate General, is consistent, has rightly been relied upon by learned trial Court. The appeal, as such, has been sought to be dismissed and the impugned judgment affirmed. 9. This backdrop and the rival contentions, takes us to the real points in controversy. Since much has been said by learned defence counsel about the so called discrepancies and inconsistencies in the prosecution evidence, therefore, we would like to set at rest this part of the controversy first. Learned trial Judge has noticed the so called discrepancies in Para-23 of the impugned judgment, reproduced herein as under:- “23. It was submitted that there are contradictions in the testimonies of the eye witnesses. The contradictions which have been pointed out are:- (i) PW-1 HHC Inder Singh stated that on the way before reaching the spot no vehicle had been checked. They had not stopped on the way, whereas PW-2 C. Rajesh Kumar stated that before reaching the spot, they had stopped at 2-3 places and on the way vehicles had been checked but no challan was prepared. According to PW- 7 ASI Sher Singh Negi, prior to their reaching the spot, they had stopped at Gasow, Sanarsa and Rattanpur. No vehicle had been checked. (ii) PW-1 HHC Inder Singh stated that the personal search of the accused had been conducted, whereas PW-10 ASI Sher Singh Negi stated that the personal search of the accused had not been conducted when he was arrested. Only his backpack had been searched. (iii) PW-1 HHC Inder Singh stated that they had remained on the spot till 7.30 P.M., while PW-10 ASI Sher Singh Negi claimed that they had remained at the spot till 8.30 P.M. C. Rajesh Kumar had stated that he had remained at the spot till 7.30 P.M. when Rukka had been given to him. (iii) PW-1 HHC Inder Singh stated that they had remained on the spot till 7.30 P.M., while PW-10 ASI Sher Singh Negi claimed that they had remained at the spot till 8.30 P.M. C. Rajesh Kumar had stated that he had remained at the spot till 7.30 P.M. when Rukka had been given to him. (iv) PW-10 ASI Sher Singh had stated that C. Rajesh had taken the Rukka in the official vehicle. PW-1 HHC Inder Singh was not aware as to how C. Rajesh Kumar had gone from the spot and had returned. According to PW-3 Ram Chander Negi C. Rajesh had come to his shop on foot.” 10. True it is that according to PW-1 HHC Inder Singh, they did not check any vehicle on their way to the spot, whereas according to PW-2 Constable Rajesh Kumar before reaching at spot, the police party had stopped at 2-3 places and checked vehicles also but not challaned, whereas as per the version of PW-10 ASI Sher Singh on their way to the spot the police party stopped at Gasow, Sanarsa and Rattanpur, however, no vehicle was checked by them. 11. Similarly, according to PW-1 HHC Inder Singh, the personal search of the accused was also conducted, whereas as per that of PW-10 ASI Sher Singh, Investigating Officer, his personal search was not conducted at the time of his arrest and it is only the search of his backpack, was conducted. 12. While as per the version of PW-1 HHC Inder Singh and PW-2 Constable Rajesh Kumar, they remained at the spot till 07.30 p.m., however, as per PW-10 ASI Sher Singh, they remained at the spot till 08.30 p.m. 13. True it is that as per the version of PW-10 ASI Sher Singh, the Rukka was taken by Constable Rajesh Kumar to Police Station in official vehicle, however, PW-1 HHC Inder Singh expressed his ignorance qua the mode by which Constable Rajesh Kumar went to Police Station with Rukka. 14. However, the above contradictions are insignificant and not go to the very root of the prosecution case. Otherwise also, such contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses are bound to occur because with the passage of time, the memory of witnesses fades away. 14. However, the above contradictions are insignificant and not go to the very root of the prosecution case. Otherwise also, such contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses are bound to occur because with the passage of time, the memory of witnesses fades away. Now, looking to the statements of the witnesses PW-1 HHC Inder Singh, PW-2 Constable Rajesh Kumar and PW-10 ASI Sher Singh, they have been subjected to lengthy cross-examination. Therefore, in our considered opinion the above contradictions and so called inconsistencies were bound to occur, however, not fatal to the prosecution case. Learned trial Judge has rightly appreciated this part of the prosecution case in its right perspective with the help of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court. The same need not be reproduced or discussed in detail to overload the judgment unnecessarily. 15. Now, if coming to second limb of the arguments addressed by learned defence counsel, true it is that PW-10 ASI Sher Singh has not associated anyone as independent witness and satisfied himself by associating the official witnesses. We, however, find the present a case where non-joining of independent witnesses by the Investigating Officer is also not fatal to the prosecution. The present is not a case of prior information qua someone (accused) coming with charas in his possession. The police party rather as per the testimonies of PW-10 ASI Sher Singh, PW-1 HHC Inder Singh and PW-2 Constable Rajesh Kumar, supported by Rapat/Rojnamcha Ext.PW-6/A, was rather on patrol duty in that area. It is near Explosive Magazine Technology House Private Limited on Rattanpur-Majhewali road, the accused spotted coming through a link road towards Majhewali side. He was apprehended because on seeing the police vehicle he got perplexed and started running. Since he was carrying the backpack Ext.P-2 on his right shoulder, therefore, the search thereof was conducted and the charas Ext.P-4 recovered. The present, as such, is a case of chance recovery. We feel that after recovery of charas, the non-joining of independent witnesses was fatal to the prosecution case because after that stage onward it is only sampling process and seizure of the contraband had to take place on the spot. Though the Investigating Officer had deputed PW-2 Constable Rajesh Kumar in search of independent witnesses and also to arrange for a weighing scale. Though the Investigating Officer had deputed PW-2 Constable Rajesh Kumar in search of independent witnesses and also to arrange for a weighing scale. The said witness, however, brought only weighing scale with him and not anyone for being associated as independent witness being not available. This Court in Cr. Appeal No. 37 of 2015, titled State of H.P. Vs. Tilak Raj, decided on 27.2.2017, while placing reliance on the law laid down by Hon’ble the Apex Court has held that the independent witnesses are not available at every time and at each place. Some time, the people even refuses to associate the police during the course of investigation. Therefore, in such a situation, the Investigating Agency, if associated only the police officials and their testimonies are consistent as well as without any contradiction, the same is legally admissible in evidence as that of an independent person. Since we have already discarded the so called discrepancies and inconsistencies being insignificant and do not go to very route of the prosecution case, therefore, the non-joining of independent witnesses in the case in hand, is not fatal to the prosecution. True it is that PW-3 Ram Chander Negi has stated in his cross-examination that when Constable came to his shop for carrying weighing scale, 2-3 persons were sitting there. It is also argued that PW-3 Ram Chander Negi himself should have been asked to associate as an independent witness during the investigation of the case, however, as already noticed, the charas was already recovered by that time from the accused and the official witnesses were present to witness the search and seizure coupled with the factum of nothing was suggested to PW-2 Constable Rajesh Kumar and PW-3 Ram Chander that had he been asked to assist the police in conducting the investigation would have agreed to do so or those 2-3 persons would have also assisted the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation. Learned trial Judge has examined this aspect of the case as put-forth by the defence in detail with the help of the law laid down by the apex Court, including in Baldev Singh vs. State of Haryana, 2016 CrLJ 154 , a recent judgment. Learned trial Judge has examined this aspect of the case as put-forth by the defence in detail with the help of the law laid down by the apex Court, including in Baldev Singh vs. State of Haryana, 2016 CrLJ 154 , a recent judgment. True it is that the defence has made an effort to show that the investigation has not taken place in the manner and rather he was brought by Constable Roshan Lal and Constable Rajesh Kumar on 09.05.2015 from the house of one Vinod Kumar, situated at Village Gasow Pull to the Police Station. The prosecution witnesses, however, denied such plea raised by the accused in his defence when put to them during their cross-examinations. In such a situation, the accused himself could have examined said Sh. Vinod Kumar in his defence because there is nothing on record to show that said Sh. Vinod Kumar was not available to appear and make statement on account of his death or otherwise. Therefore, an adverse inference has to be drawn against the accused as had he examined said Sh. Vinod Kumar, may have not supported the defence version. By suggesting to the Investigating Officer that in the photographs Ext.D-1 and D-2, a white coloured car is visible and an effort has been made to show that someone else was present there, however, unsuccessfully for the reason that though a very small portion, i.e. only front tyre of some vehicle is visible in photograph Ext.D-2, however, the vehicle in stationary condition is parked on road side. The same may, as such, be the official vehicle of the police. As rightly noted in the impugned judgment no evidence that the accused protested his arrest by the police complained to learned Presiding Judge of the Court when produced for remand etc. after his arrest has come on record. Learned trial Judge has also taken into consideration the remand papers. Therefore, we are in agreement with the findings recorded by learned trial Judge that non-joining of independent witnesses during the course of investigation, is not fatal in the case in hand. 16. Although nothing has been brought to our notice during the course of arguments that Section 42 of the Act is applicable to the given facts and circumstances of this case, yet the same is raised as one of the grounds in the appeal. 16. Although nothing has been brought to our notice during the course of arguments that Section 42 of the Act is applicable to the given facts and circumstances of this case, yet the same is raised as one of the grounds in the appeal. We would like to deal with this aspect of the matter also. As already pointed out, the present is a case of chance recovery. Being so, Section 42 of the Act has no application therein. In a similar situation, we have discussed the scope and applicability of Section 42 of the Act in a recent judgment, delivered on 18th August, 2017, in Cr. Appeal No.511 of 2016 alongwith connected Criminal Appeals, titled Raj Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of H.P. Therefore, we are not inclined to accept the plea raised on behalf of the accused that for want of compliance of Section 42 of the Act, the proceedings against him are vitiated. 17. The present is also not a case where Section 50 of the Act is applicable for the simple reason that charas was recovered from backpack Ext.P-2, which the accused was carrying on his right shoulder. As per the settled legal principles taken note of by learned trial Judge, the compliance of Section 50 of the Act is required only in those cases where the personal search of the accused is required to be conducted to affect the recovery of psychotropic substance or narcotic drugs from him consequent upon recent information received. The present, however, is not a case of this nature. 18. True it is that the recovery of Narcotic Drugs or Psychotropic Substance from the conscious and physical possession of the accused is sine qua non for recording findings of his guilt. However, the presence of the accused on the spot in the case in hand, is very much established from the perusal of the photographs Ext.D-1 and Ext.D-2 and also from the perusal of photographs Ext.PW-5/A-4, Ext.PW-5/A-7, Ext.PW-5/A-8, Ext.PW-5/A-9, Ext.PW-5/A-16, Ext.PW-5/A-19, Ext.PW-5/A-21, Ext.PW-5/A-24, Ext.PW-5/A-25 & Ext.PW-5/A- 26. Not only this, but recovered charas in the shape of sticks and pancake is visible in the photographs Ext.PW-5/A-5 and Ext.PW-5/A-6, whereas the currency notes from the photographs Ext.PW-5/A-20. The search and seizure being taken place on the spot is also visible from the perusal of the remaining photographs. It is not the case of the accused that he was present on the spot. The search and seizure being taken place on the spot is also visible from the perusal of the remaining photographs. It is not the case of the accused that he was present on the spot. His plea that he was brought from the house of Vinod Kumar to Police Station, has already been discarded by us as had it been so, he would have examined said Shri Vinod Kumar. In such a situation, the testimony of the official witnesses that he was spotted coming down through a link road towards Rattanpur-Majhewali road, and on suspicion when search of the backpack he was carrying conducted, charas weighing 1 kg. 80 grams was recovered therefrom, is true and correct. Therefore, the prosecution case that the charas weighing 1 kg. 80 grams has been recovered from physical and conscious possession of the accused is satisfactorily proved on record. Learned trial Judge, as such, has considered this part of the prosecution case in its right perspective. 19. Now, if coming to the link evidence, the factum of drawing sample of seal ‘H’ Ext.PW-1/B and seal ‘A’ Ext.PW-10/E and filling the NCB form Ext.PW-7/C, in triplicate by the Investigating Officer on the spot, stand satisfactorily proved from the testimonies of PW-1 HHC Inder Singh, PW-2 Constable Rajesh Kumar and PW-10 ASI Sher Singh Negi, the Investigating Officer. The factum of production of the accused and case property before SI/SHO Tara Singh (since dead), is also proved on record from the entries in Rapat Rojnamcha Ext.PW-6/B. Similarly, the resealing of the case property by SI/SHO Tara Chand with seal ‘A’ and filling of relevant column, also find support form the Rapat Rojnamcha Ext.PW-6/C. As per this document, the case property alongwith NCB form in triplicate and samples of seal as well as seizure memo etc., were handed over to HC Ramesh Chand, the then MHC for safe custody in the Malkhana. The entries in the Malkhana Register Ext.PW-7/A, reveal that MHC PW-7 has retained the case property in safe custody in the Malkhana. The RC Ext.PW/7/B, makes it crystal clear that the case property alongwith samples of seals and NCB form etc., was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Junga, through PW-4 Pradeep Kumar. The Rapat to this effect Ext.PW-6/E is on record. The RC Ext.PW/7/B, makes it crystal clear that the case property alongwith samples of seals and NCB form etc., was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Junga, through PW-4 Pradeep Kumar. The Rapat to this effect Ext.PW-6/E is on record. The delivery of special report to SDPO Rampur, has also been proved from the Rapat Ext.PW-6/F. The production of the case property in the Court during the course of trial by the prosecution is apparent from the daily diary Ext.PW-7/D-1, Ext.PW-7/D-2, Ext.PW-7/D-3 Ext.PW-7/D-4. The report Ext.PX, reveals that the extract sent for analysis was found to be sample of charas. Therefore, the link evidence is also suggestive of that the Investigating Agency has complied with all codal formalities and as such it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that the recovery of charas has been planted or foisted against the accused. 20. Learned trial Judge, as such, has rightly convicted the accused. He has also been rightly sentenced for the reason that for the commission of an offence of this nature, there is provision of awarding sentence not less than 10 years but which may extend to 20 years and fine which shall not be less than Rs.1,00,000/- and may extend to Rs.2,00,000/-. We, however, are in agreement with learned defence counsel that the default sentence is on higher side. We consider the simple imprisonment of six months on failure of the accused/convict to pay the amount of fine just and reasonable to be imposed against him by way of default sentence. Therefore, the imprisonment of default sentence, i.e. simple imprisonment for two years being on higher side is quashed and set aside and on his failure to pay the fine, the convict-accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for six months. 21. In view of what has stated hereinabove, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, the impugned judgment though is affirmed, however, with slight modification that instead of simple imprisonment for two years, the appellant-convict shall undergo simple imprisonment for six months on his failure to deposit the amount of fine. The jail warrants will also stand modified accordingly. The appeal is disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.