JUDGMENT S.K. SAHOO, J. - The appellant Sambhulal Tibrewal faced trial in the Court of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Judge, Special Court, Jharsuguda in T.R. Case No. 7 of 2002 for the offence punishable under Section 20 (b) (ii) (C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter ‘the N.D.P.S.Act’) on the accusation of possessing 82 Kgs. 100 grams of ganja illegally on 11.06.2002 at about 3.15 p.m. in his house situated at Marwaripada under Jharsuguda Police Station. The learned Trial Court vide impugned judgment and order dated 26.07.2005 found the appellant guilty under Section 20 (b) (ii) (C) of the N.D.P.S. Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 15 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only), in default, to undergo further R.I. for six months. 2. The prosecution case as per the first information report lodged by Sri Pradeep Kumar Mohapatra ( p.W.9), Circle Inspector of Police, Jharsuguda on 11.06.2002 before Jharsuguda Police Station is that on that day at 10.45 a.m. while he was at Jharsuguda Police Station, he received reliable information from his own source that the appellant and his brother Natabarlal Tibrewal were dealing with ganja in large quantity and selling the same to general public and that they had kept ganja in their houses. P.W. 9 after receipt of such information, entered the fact in the station diary vide S.D. Entry No.232 dated 11.06.2002 and intimated the fact to the Superintendent of Police, Jharsuguda vide letter No.769/Jgu P.S. dated 11.06.2002 through Constable No.177 Biranchi Pradhan (P.W.2) vide command certificate No.26. P.W.9 requested the S.P., Jharsuguda to move the District Magistrate and Collector, Jharsuguda to depute one Executive Magistrate to remain present during verification about the truthfulness of the information. After arrival of Mr. Jameswar Sahu (P.W. 6), S.D.M. & Sub-Collector, Jharsuguda, P.W. 9 along with the other police officials and S.D.M., proceeded to Marwaripada in a Jeep and he arranged two local witnesses namely Raju Poddar and Rajendra Prasad Sharma ( P.W.7) and informed them about their information and requested them to assist during the search. When the raiding party members arrived at the house of the appellant, they called the appellant who came out of the house opening the front door and the raiding party members gave their identity and informed him about their information and also intention to search the house. When the raiding party members arrived at the house of the appellant, they called the appellant who came out of the house opening the front door and the raiding party members gave their identity and informed him about their information and also intention to search the house. It is further stated in the F.I.R. that the appellant took personal search of the informant and other police officials and then the raiding party members entered inside the house of the appellant and searched the house and during search of the room of the appellant in presence of the witnesses, they found one gunny bag and a green colour Allwin attaché in the corner of the bed room and on search of the gunny bag and attaché, ganja was found therein and another gunny bag was found in the Puja Ghar below the cemented slab which was brought out and opened and ganja was also found therein. One medium weighment scale was also found. The weight of the ganja found in the gunny bags was taken. In the fist gunny bag, the total weight of the ganja was found to be 34 kgs. 500 grams including the gunny bag and the ganja in the attaché was found to be 8 kgs. 500 grams including the attaché and the ganja in the second gunny bag was found to be 39 kgs. 100 grams including the gunny bag. P.W. 9 collected sample ganja in two packets from each of the gunny bags as well as attaché and weighment slip was prepared in presence of the witnesses. The sample packets were stitched so also the main packets in presence of the witnesses and those were sealed by using the brass seal of P.W. 9. Seizure lists were prepared and the contents were read over and explained to the witnesses who put their signatures. When the appellant was asked by P.W. 9 to produce any authority for keeping such huge quantity of ganja in the house, he failed to produce the same and accordingly, he was taken into custody after disclosure of grounds of arrest. Seizure lists were prepared and the contents were read over and explained to the witnesses who put their signatures. When the appellant was asked by P.W. 9 to produce any authority for keeping such huge quantity of ganja in the house, he failed to produce the same and accordingly, he was taken into custody after disclosure of grounds of arrest. On the basis of such first information report, Jharsuguda P.S. Case No.118 of 2002 was registered on 11.06.2002 under Section 20 (b) (ii) (C) of the N.D.P.S. Act and P.W. 9 along with the appellant and the seized articles returned to the police station, handed over the seized articles to the officer in charge who is the custodian of Malkhana and necessary entries were made in the Malkhana register. The officer in charge put his seal over the seized properties and necessary entries were also made in the station diary relating to act done by P.W. 9 right from the receipt of the information, search of the house of the appellant, recovery of ganja, arrest of the accused and keeping the seized articles in the P.S. Malkhana. P.W. 9 took up investigation of the case, examined the witnesses, visited the spot again, prepared the spot map and forwarded the appellant to Court. He also sent the seized articles to the Special Court to forward the seized sample for chemical examination and as per the orders of the Special Court, the seized samples were forwarded to the Deputy Director, R.F.S.L. by the S.D.J.M., Jharsuguda. P.W. 9 made requisition to the Tahasildar, Jharsuguda to demarcate the land over which the house of the appellant was standing, who on demarcation, submitted a report vide Ext.1 annexing a sketch map. P.,W. 9 then seized the station diary entry book, malkhana register, command certificate, dispatch register on production of the officer in charge which was seized under seizure list Ext. 2 and then it was handed over to the zima of the officer in charge who executed the zimanama. P.W. 9 handed over the charge of investigation to his successor P.K. Mohanty who only submitted the charge sheet. 3. During course of trial, in order to prove its case, the prosecution examined nine witnesses. P.W. 1 Abhimanyu Panda was the Amin attached to Tahasil Office, Jharsuguda who demarcated the house of the appellant as per direction of the Addl. P.W. 9 handed over the charge of investigation to his successor P.K. Mohanty who only submitted the charge sheet. 3. During course of trial, in order to prove its case, the prosecution examined nine witnesses. P.W. 1 Abhimanyu Panda was the Amin attached to Tahasil Office, Jharsuguda who demarcated the house of the appellant as per direction of the Addl. Tahasildar, Jharsuguda and he prepared a sketch map; and his report vide Ext.1. P.W. 2 Biranchi Narayan Pradhan was the Constable of Jharsuguda Police Station who took a letter from P.W. 9 to the Superintendent of Police, Jharsuguda on 11.06.2002. P.W. 3 Gadadhar Bhainsal was the A.S.I. of Police attached to Jharsuguda Police Station and he stated about the seizure of station diary entry book, malkhana register, dispatch register and command certificate under seizure list Ext.2. P.W. 4 Ekadasia Dehuri was the S.I. of Police, Jharsuguda Police Station and he was a member of the raiding party who stated about the search of the house of the appellant and seizure of ganja from the house. P.W. 5 Pravakar Panda was the A.S.I. of Police, Jharsuguda Police Station and he has also stated about the search and seizure of ganja and preparation of relevant documents. P.W. 6 Jameswar Sahu was the Sub-Divisional Magistrate-cum-Sub-Collector, Jharsuguda who was present with P.W. 9 at the time of search of the house of the appellant and recovery of ganja bags. P.W. 7 Rajendra Prasad Sharma did not support the prosecution case, for which he was declared hostile. P.W. 8 Jyotsnamayee Pradhan was the Woman Sub-Inspector attached to Jharsuguda Police Station and she also proceeded to the spot with the raiding party members and she stated about the search and seizure of ganja from the gunny bags and attaché. P.W. 9 Pradeep Kumar Mohapatra was the Circle Inspectgor of Police, Jharsuguda who is the investigating officer in the case. The prosecution exhibited twenty three documents Ext. 1 is the report of P.W. 1, Exts. 2 and 3 are the seizure lists, Ext.4 is the details of narcotic drugs seized, Exts. 5, 6, 7 and 8 are the signatures, Ext. 9 is the station diary entry, Ext. 10 is the dispatch register, Ext. 11 is the office order of District Magistrate, Exts. 12 and 13 are the weighment slips, Ext. 14 is the plain paper F.I.R., Ext. 15 is the entry in the malkhana register, Exts. 5, 6, 7 and 8 are the signatures, Ext. 9 is the station diary entry, Ext. 10 is the dispatch register, Ext. 11 is the office order of District Magistrate, Exts. 12 and 13 are the weighment slips, Ext. 14 is the plain paper F.I.R., Ext. 15 is the entry in the malkhana register, Exts. 16 and 21 are the S.D. entries, Ext. 17 is the office copy of the letter sent to the S.P., Jharsuguda, Ext. 18 is the entry made in the dispatch register, Ext. 19 is the spot map, Ext. 20 is the copy of letter forwarded to R.S.F.L., Ext. 22 is the zimanama and Ext. 23 is the Chemical Examination Reports. Prosecution proved seven numbers of material objects. M.O. i and II are the ganja packets, M.O. III is the attaché, M.O. IV, V and VI are lthe sample packets and M.O. IV/a is the sample packet of ganja. 4. The defence plea of the appellant is one of denial and it is pleaded that some persons were inimically disposed of towards the appellant for which a false case has been foisted. 5. The learned Trial Court after analysing the evidence on record, came to hold that the evidence of P.Ws. 5, 6, 8 and 9 is clear that recovery of ganja was made from the living room of the appellant and from the Puja Ghar which suggest that no other person than the appellant had the exclusive possession over the same. It was further held that no explanation is forthcoming from the appellant as to how the ganja was found in gunny bag under the floor of the Puja Ghar covered by a cement slab so also in the gunny bag and attaché which were found inside the living room. The learned Trial Court further held that the appellant was in exclusive and conscious possession of huge quantity of ganja and the seizure of weighing scales and weights of different denomination speaks about the fact that the appellant was engaged in the business of ganja and the quantity of ganja seized was more than 82 Kgs. which comes under the commercial quantity and accordingly, the learned Trial Court found the appellant guilty under Section 20 (b) (ii) (C) of the N.D.P.S. Act. 6. Mr. which comes under the commercial quantity and accordingly, the learned Trial Court found the appellant guilty under Section 20 (b) (ii) (C) of the N.D.P.S. Act. 6. Mr. Umesh Chandra Behura, learned Counsel for the appellant contended that in the impugned judgment and order of conviction is not sustainable in the eye of law and the mandatory provision under Section 42 (2) of the N.D.P.S. Act has not been compiled with the dispatch of the intimation by P.W. 9 to Superintendent of Police through P.W. 2 is a doubtful feature. He further contended that since the report of the Amin who has been examined as P.W. 1 was that the house stood in the name of Ambhulal Tribrewal, therefore, it cannot be said that the ganja was seized from the exclusive and conscious possession of the appellant. It is further submitted that the independent witness to the search and seizure i.e. P.W. 7 was not supported the prosecution case and the other independent witness Raju Podar has not been examined and there are inconsistencies and contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses P.Ws. 5, 6, 8 and 9. It is further contended that P.W. 9 is the informant who conducted search and seizure and he also investigated the matter which is not proper and justified. He relied upon the decision of this Court in case of Prasanta Kumar Behera Vrs. State of Orissa reported in (2016) 64 Orissa Criminal Reports 40, State by Inspector of Police Vrs. Rajangam reported in (2010) 15 Supreme Court Cases 369 and Mangna Singh Vrs. State of Harayan reported in 1995 Criminal Law Journals 3988. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the minimum substantive sentence prescribed for the offence under Section 20 (b) (ii) (C) of the N.D.P.S. Act is ten years which may extend to twenty years and the minimum fine to be imposed is one lakh rupees which may extend to two lakhs rupees which can be further exceeded by recording reasons. Learned Counsel contended that in view of Section 32-B of the N.D.P.S.Act, certain factors are to be considered by the learned Trial Court if it chooses to impose higher punishment than the minimum term imprisonment or amount of fine which has not been done in the case and therefore, the substantive sentence of R.I. of fifteen years which has been imposed on the appellant is not sustainable in the eye of law. Mr. Arupananda Das, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the State supported the impugned judgment and submitted that the provision under Section 42 (2) of the N.D.P.S. Act has been complied with and even though the independent witness P.W. 7 has not supported the prosecution case and the other independent witness has not been examined by the prosecution but since the version of the official witnesses is reliable, cogent and truthful, there is no bar for a Court to act upon such statements. He further contended that merely because P.W. 9 who is the informant in the case, conducted search and seizure and investigated the matter that cannot be the sole ground to reject the prosecution case. He further contended that the very fact that the house in question was in possession of the appellant at the relevant time of search and seizure, the evidence of the Amin (P.W.1) that the house stands in the name of another is irrelevant. Learned Counsel for the State produced instruction from the Senior Superintendent, Circle Jail, Sambalpur wherein it is indicated that the appellant was convicted under Section 20 (b) (ii) (C) of N.D.P.S. Act and sentenced to R.I. for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only), in default of payment of fine, a further sentence of one year was imposed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No.267 of 2005, while modifying the sentence imposed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Judge, Special Court, Jharsuguda in T.R. Case No.36 of 2002 and such sentence which was imposed in T.R. Case No.36/2000 was completed on 01.01.2010 and after completion of substantive sentence in T.R. Case No.36/2002, the substantive sentence awarded in this case commenced from 02.01.2010 and therefore, the appellant is to remain in custody till 17.11.2021 after deducting the U.T.P. period in this case. 7. 7. Considering the submissions of learned Counsels for the respective parties, let me first address regarding the compliance or otherwise of the provision under Section 42 of the N.D.P.S. Act. Law is well settled that total non-compliance with the provisions under Sub-Sections (1) and (2) of Section 42 of the N.D.P.S. Act is impermissible and it vitiates the conviction and renders the entire prosecution case suspect and cause prejudice to the accused. Section 42 (21) of the N.D.P.S. Act states that when an officer takes down any information in writing under Sub-Section (1) or records grounds for his belief under the proviso thereto, he shall send a copy thereof to his immediate official superior within seventy-two hours. Under Section 42 (1), if the empowered officer receives reliable information from any person relating to commission of an offence under the N.D.P.S. Act that the contraband articles and incriminating documents have been kept or concealed in any building, conveyance or enclosed place and he reasonably believes such information, he has to take down the same in writing. However, lf the empowered officer reasonably believes about such aspects from his personal knowledge, he need not taken down the same in writing. Similarly recording of grounds of belief before entering and searching any building, conveyance of enclosed place at any time between sunset and sunrise is necessary under the second proviso to Sub-Section (1) of Section 42 of the N.D.P.S. Act if the concerned officer has reason to belief that obtaining search warrant or authorization for search during that period would afford opportunity for the concealment of evidence or facility for the escape of an offender. The copy of information taken down in writing under Sub-Section (1) or the grounds of belief recorded under the second proviso to Sub-Section (1) of Section 42 of the N.D.P.S. Act has to be sent to his immediate superior official within seventy-two hours. In this case, the reliable information was received by P.W. 9 at about 10.45 a.m. on 11.06.2002 while he was at Jharsuguda police station and he reduced the said information into writing in station diary entry No.232 vide Ext. 9. He dispatched the information to the Superintendent of Police immediately through P.W. 2 enclosing the extract of the station diary entry. The copy of the letter has been marked as Ext. 10. 9. He dispatched the information to the Superintendent of Police immediately through P.W. 2 enclosing the extract of the station diary entry. The copy of the letter has been marked as Ext. 10. P.W. 9 has stated about such aspect and P.W. 2 has stated that as per the direction of P.W 9 on 11.06.2002, he handed over the letter No.769 dated 11.06.2002 to the Superintendent of Police, Jharsuguda. On perusal of the Ext. 10, it reveals that it is dated 11.06.2002 and P.W. 9 has sent it to the Superintendent of Police and the diary number has been mentioned therein with date and it was received in the office of the Superintendent of Police on the very day and the signature of the receiving official is appearing on Ext. 10 and the station diary entry No.232 dated 11.06.2002 was also enclosed with the letter under Ext. 10. Nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination to disbelieve such aspect. Therefore, in view of the evidence of P.W. 9 and P.W. 2 coupled with the contents of Ext. 10 and the noting made therein, I am of the view that the provisions under Section 42 of the N.D.P.S.Act has been duly complied with by the prosecution. 8. Merely because the report of the Amin who has been examined as P.W.1 was that the house stood in the name of Ambhulal Tribrewal, it cannot be said that prosecution has failed to prove the exclusive and conscious possession of ganja with the appellant. A combined and careful reading of Section 35 and 54 of the N.D.P.S. indicates that if a person is found having possession of the contraband materials or having control over them or the facts are such which indicate the circumstances to presume the possession of the accused then a presumption is liable to be raised against the accused in relation to his mental state and also presumption of possession in relation to illicit articles recovered either from the person of the accused or from the place. In this case, the important aspect is not the ownership of the house. The important aspect of the case is whether the particular house which may or may not be belonging to a particular person was in possession of the appellant and whether the appellant was having conscious possession of the contraband ganja. In this case, the important aspect is not the ownership of the house. The important aspect of the case is whether the particular house which may or may not be belonging to a particular person was in possession of the appellant and whether the appellant was having conscious possession of the contraband ganja. If the answer is in affirmative, then, in my humble opinion, the question of ownership will be of no significance. When the police officials along with the Magistrate reached at the house and called the appellant, he came out of the house and then after observing formalities, the house was searched and from the bed room and Puja Ghar, the contraband ganja was found. No other person was found in the house. The evidence on record indicates that the appellant was separate from his brothers and having separate business and separate mess. As regards possession, the word includes physical or holding control or custody of the property for one’s use either as owner or person with other rights. It may or may not be with the ownership. Particularly, in the cases where the possession of a particular thing is punishable under the law and to raise presumption on a finding in possession of a prohibited material then in that event even a temporary possession is sufficient to presume that there has been contravention of law by the person who is or was found in the possession of the prohibited material etc. Unless it is shown by preponderance of probabilities or otherwise that presumption is not required to be raised as the possession of the accused has been satisfactorily explained, the accused in such cases cannot escape the liability in view of Sections 35 and 54 of the N.D.P.S. Act. it is correct that the prosecution has to discharge the initial burden to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt but in the cases when the law specifically provides to raise presumption in certain circumstances in relation to the mental state of accused persons when found in possession of contraband materials then the accused is required to rebut such presumption. The appellant has miserably failed in that respect. 9. The appellant has miserably failed in that respect. 9. P.W. 9 on receipt of the reliable information proceeded to the spot and searched the house in presence of other official witnesses and independent witnesses and seized the contraband ganja and arrested the appellant and he is the informant in the case and he also investigated the case to a great extent which he should not have ordinarily done in view of the fairness of things but it cannot be said that in every case where such investigation is done by the informant, the trial is vitiated. If no prejudice is caused to the accused, such an investigation by the informant himself need not be thrown overboard and the Court can decide about the culpability of the accused persons depending upon the available materials on record. Though it is desirable that informant should not investigate a case himself, there is no absolute proposition of law that all such investigations held by an informant-Investigating Officer are vitiated. The learned Counsel for the appellant has failed to point out any illegalities committed by P.W. 9 during course of his investigation before he handed over the charge to somebody else or in what way the appellant was prejudiced by such investigation. Therefore, on the ground that P.W. 9 being informant investigated the case, the prosecution case cannot be discarded. 10. P.W. 7 is an independent witness and he has not supported the prosecution case and the other independent witness to the search and seizure has not been examined by the prosecution during trial. However, the official witnesses like P.W. 5 Pravakar Panda, A.S.I. of Police, Jharsuguda Police Station, P.W. 6 Jameswar Sahu, Sub-divisional Magistrate-cum-Sub-Collector, Jharsuguda, P.W. 8 Jyostnamayee Pradhan, Women Sub-Inspectgor of Police attached to Jharsuguda Police Station and P.W. 9 Pradip Kumar Mohapatra, the informant have supported the prosecution case regarding the search and seizure of ganja from the house in possession of the appellant. Law is well settled that evidence of Police withnesses cannot be discarded doubting their creditworthiness on the ground that it is not supported by independent evidence and that they are interested in the success of the case. Credibility of a witness has to be tested on the touchstone of truthfulness and trustworthiness. Prudence however requires that the evidence of police officials needs to be carefully scrutinized and independently appreciated. Credibility of a witness has to be tested on the touchstone of truthfulness and trustworthiness. Prudence however requires that the evidence of police officials needs to be carefully scrutinized and independently appreciated. If such evidence is otherwise reliable and trustworthy, it cannot be discarded on the ground that it is not corroborated in material particulars by other independent witnesses. It is not judicial approach to distrust and suspect a police officer connected with investigation of the case without good grounds there for. It can only run down the prestige of the police administration and dishearten them. Absence of support from the independent witnesses of the locality to lend corroboration to the police witnesses, does not in any way affect the creditworthiness of the prosecution case. On going through the evidence of the official witnesses, I find that nothing has elicited in the cross-examination to discredit their version and therefore, merely because the independent witness (P.W.7) has not supported the prosecution case, the entire case cannot be disbelieved and discarded. I am of the view that on the basis of the ocular as well as documentary evidence, the prosecution case regarding seizure of 82 Kgs. 100 grams of ganja from the conscious and exclusive possession of the appellant is clearly established and in that respect the finding of the learned Trial Court is quite justified and the same is hereby confirmed. 11. Coming to the sentence imposed by the learned Trial Court, I find that after convicting the appellant under Section 20 (b) (ii) (C) of the N.D.P.S,.Act, the learned Trial Court has observed that the appellant had kept huge quantity of ganja even inside a secret place in Puja Ghar which he utilized for transaction and therefore, he was of the view that the appellant is not entitled to be leniently dealt with. It is further observed that dealing such huge quantity of ganja is an offence more heinous than the offence of homicide. With these reasons, the learned Trial Court has imposed substantive sentence of R.I. for 15 years and also directed to the appellant to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only), in default, to undergo further R.I. for six months. With these reasons, the learned Trial Court has imposed substantive sentence of R.I. for 15 years and also directed to the appellant to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only), in default, to undergo further R.I. for six months. Section 20 (b) (ii) (c) of the N.D.P.S. Act prescribes, inter alia, that whoever, in contradiction of any provision of the Act or any rule or order made or condition of license granted thereunder possesses cannabis which involves commercial quantity, he shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to twenty years and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees and which may extend to two lakh rupees. Provided that the Court may, for reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a fine exceeding two lakh rupees. Provided that the Court may, for reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a fine exceeding two lakh rupees. Section 32-B of the N.D.P.S. Act deals with factors to be taken into account for imposing higher than the minimum punishment which reads as follows : “32-B. Where a minimum term of imprisonment or amount of fine is prescribed for any offence committed under this Act, the Court may, in addition to such factors as it may deem fit, take into account the following factors for imposing a punishment higher than the minimum term of imprisonment or amount of fine, namely :- (a) the use or threat of use of violence or arms by the offender; (b) the fact that the offender holds a public office and that he has taken advantage of that office in committing the offence; (c) the fact that the minors are affected by the offence or the minors are used for the commission of an offence; and (d) the fact that the offence is committed in an educational institution or special service facility or in their immediate vicinity of such institution or faculty or in other place to which school children and students resort for educational, sports and social activities; (e) the fact that the offender belongs to organized international or any other criminal group which is involved in the commission of the offence; and (f) the fact that the offender is involved in other illegal activities facilitated by commission of the offence.” On a bare reading of this Section, it is apparent that ordinarily minimum term of imprisonment or fine has to be imposed where it has been so prescribed but if the case comes under any of the clauses i.e. (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) or (f) of Section 32-B or any other factors as it may deem fit then the Court may award more punishment than the minimum. On going through the reasons assigned by the learned Trial Court in the impugned judgment, it is clear that none of reasons falls within the category of the clauses (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) or (f). The reasons assigned were not sufficient enough to award more punishment than the minimum. On going through the reasons assigned by the learned Trial Court in the impugned judgment, it is clear that none of reasons falls within the category of the clauses (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) or (f). The reasons assigned were not sufficient enough to award more punishment than the minimum. It is clear that while imposing a substantive sentence R.I. for fifteen years, the learned Trial Court has not kept in view the provision under Section 32-B of the N.D.P.S. Act which was inserted in the N.D.P.S. Act w.e.f. 02.10.2001.The occurrence in this case took place on 11.06.2002 and therefore, at the time of imposing sentence, it was the duty of the learned Trial Court to take into account the provision under Section 32-B of the N.D.P.S .Act. it is the well settled principle of law that substantive provision unless specifically provided for otherwise intended by the Parliament should be held to have a prospective operation. One of the facets of rule of law is also that all statutes should be presumed to have a prospective operation only. Therefore, when the amendment has come in the N.D.P.S. Act and a provision under Section 32-B of the N.D.P.S. Act has been inserted and same has not been taken into consideration by the learned Trial Court while imposing a punishment higher than the minimum term of imprisonment, the sentence part needs modification and accordingly, instead of sentencing the appellant to undergo R.I. for fifteen years, I sentence him to undergo R.I. for a period of ten years. Since the learned Trial Court has imposed the minimum fine prescribed under Section 20 (b) (ii) (C) of the N.D.P.S. Act, I am not inclined to interfere with the same so also with the default sentence which has been imposed by the learned Trial Court in case of non-payment of fine. It is stated by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the appellant was first taken into custody in connection with the first case i.e. T.R. Case No.36 of 2000 on 28.07.2000 and he remained in custody till 30.11.2000 whereafter he was released on bail and thereafter, in connection with this case i.e. T.R. Case No.7 of 2000, he was taken into custody on 11.06.2002 and he has not been released on bail thereafter. The sentence which was imposed by the learned Trial Court i.e. Special Court, Jharsuguda in T.R. Case No.36 of 2000 i.e. R.I. for fifteen years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only), in default, of payment of fine further period of five years was modified by this Court in Criminal Appeal No.267 of 2005 to R.I. for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only), in default, of payment of fine further per8iod of one year. In that case, the judgment was pronounced by the Trial Court on 05.05.2005 and after taking into the UTP period in that case, the Senior Superintendent, Circle Jail, Sambalpur has mentioned in his letter that in T.R. Case No.36 of 2000, the substantive sentence was completed on 01.01.2010. In the present case the petitioner was taken into custody since 11.06.2002 and therefore, it is to be counted that he has remained as an UTP since 11.06.2002 till 04.05.2005 and thereafter, after conviction he has remained custody since 01.01.2010 till date. Accordingly, the Jail Authority is directed to take into consideration the modified sentence which is imposed in this judgment as well as the period already undergone by the appellant in connection with this case as UTP and after completion of substantive sentence in T.R. Case No.36 of 2000. If the petitioner has already undergone the substantive sentence of ten years and also the defaulting sentence in case of non-deposit of fine amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only), he shall be released forthwith, if his detention is not otherwise required in any other case. With the aforesaid modification of sentence, the criminal appeal stands dismissed. Appeal dismissed.