JUDGMENT : SABINA, J. 1. Appellant had faced trial in F.I.R. No. 212/2007, registered at Police Station Chhipabarod, District Baran, for offence under Section 8/18 of The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). 2. As per the prosecution story, accused were in possession of sixty kilograms opium without any permit or licence. 3. After completion of investigation and necessary formalities challan was presented against the appellant and his co-accused Ram Singh. So far as accused Pawan Kumar, Manoj Kumari, Sukhi @ Sukhdev Singh and Gyanbaldev Singh are concerned, proceedings under Section 299 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were initiated against them. 4. Prosecution in order to prove its case, examined eleven witnesses during trial. Appellant when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. prayed that he was innocent. 5. Trial court vide judgment/order dated 30.04.2010, ordered the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 18 of the Act. Co-accused Ram Singh was acquitted of the charge framed against him by giving him benefit of doubt. Hence, the present appeal by the appellant. 6. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that independent witnesses had not supported the prosecution case during trial. Be that as it may, learned counsel has submitted that, she does not challenge the conviction of the appellant under Section 18 of the Act but, has submitted that sentence qua imprisonment be reduced. 7. PW-11 Laxman Singh deposed that on 3.9.2007, he was posted as Station House Officer in a Police Station Chhipabarod. He received a secret information that contraband was being transported in vehicle bearing no. MP-09-V-1631. Consequently, a naka-bandi was organised. At 2.30 p.m., car bearing no. MP-09-V-1631, came from Rinchawa side. The said vehicle was signaled to stop. Two persons got down from the vehicle and escapped. The driver of the vehicle also managed to escape. The person who was sitting in the middle, on the back seat, was apprehended. The said person had kept two bags on his both sides. The persons who had run away from the spot were identified as Ram Singh & Pawan Kumar. The person who was apprehended disclosed his name as Heera Lal. Notice was issued to appellant Heera Lal under Section 50 of the Act. Appellant reposed confidence in him (SHO). On search of the bags recovered from the car, it was found that they contained opium. The person who was apprehended disclosed his name as Heera Lal. Notice was issued to appellant Heera Lal under Section 50 of the Act. Appellant reposed confidence in him (SHO). On search of the bags recovered from the car, it was found that they contained opium. Each bag weighed thirty kilo grams. Two samples weighing hundred grams each were separated from each bag by way of sample, parcels and control samples. The samples were marked as A1, A2 and B1, B2 respectively. The remaining contraband was also made in two sealed parcels and were marked as A and B. Case property was taken in possession. 8. Statement of PW-1 was duly corroborated by PW-9 Anil Kumar, PW-8 Prakash Singh, PW-7 Vijendra, PW-5 Ram Sevak, PW-4 Abdul Rauf. 9. Official witnesses were acting in discharge of their official duty and has no reason to falsely involve the appellant in this case. Thus, in the present case, prosecution had been successful in proving that the petitioner was found in possession of the recovered contraband without any permit or licence. 10. Accordingly, conviction of the appellant under Section 18 of the Act is maintained. However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be just and expedient to reduce the sentence qua imprisonment of the appellant. 11. Accordingly, sentence qua imprisonment of the appellant is reduced from rigorous imprisonment for fifteen years to rigorous imprisonment for ten years. So far as, sentence qua fine is concerned, the same is maintained. 12. Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.