JUDGMENT : 1. The appellant herein challenges the conviction and sentence against him under Section 20(b)(ii)B of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short “N.D.P.S Act”) in S.C 1103/2008 of the Special Court for the trial of NDPS Act Cases (Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc -I), Thrissur. 2. The prosecution case is that about 2.30 p.m on 25.5.2000, at Vazhimukku on the Ambedkar Colony Road within the Anthikkadu Excise Range, the accused was found possessing 1.050 kgs of Ganja. The offence was detected by the Circle Inspector of Excise, Thrissur during his patrol duty. The party led by him saw the accused carrying a big shopper in his hands. On seeing the Excise team, the accused got perplexed, and tried to conceal the big shopper. When the Circle Inspector opened it on suspicion, he found a packet containing some quantity of ganja. The accused was arrested and the contraband articles were seized as per a mahazar. He produced the accused and the properties at the Excise Range Office, Anthikkadu, where an Excise Inspector registered the crime and occurrence report. He investigated the case, and submitted final report in court. 3. The accused appeared before the trial court on summons and pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against him under Section 20(b)(i) of the N.D.P.S Act. The charge was framed under Section 20 (b) (i), and conviction was also made under Section 20 (b)(i) of the N.D.P.S Act, but the correct law must be Section 20 (b) (ii)B of the N.D.P.S. Act. 4. The prosecution examined six witnesses in the trial court and proved Exts.P1 to P14 documents. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused denied the incriminating circumstances. He did not adduce any evidence in defence. The MO1 to MO3 properties were also identified during trial. 5. On an appreciation of the evidence, the trial court found the accused guilty under Section 20(b)(i) of the N.D.P.S. Act. On conviction, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years, and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- by judgment dated 7.1.2011. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, the accused has come up in appeal. 6. On a perusal of the entire materials including the evidence given by the material witnesses, I find that the accused was rightly convicted by the trial court, though the section of law under which he was convicted requires correction. 50,000/- by judgment dated 7.1.2011. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, the accused has come up in appeal. 6. On a perusal of the entire materials including the evidence given by the material witnesses, I find that the accused was rightly convicted by the trial court, though the section of law under which he was convicted requires correction. This is a case where unauthorised possession of ganja having a quantity in between 1 kg and 20 kgs is alleged. If proved, the offence must come under Section 20 (b) (ii)B of the N.D.P.S Act. Of course, when the conviction is confirmed, the section of law will have to be altered by this court. 7. Of the six witnesses examined in the trial court, PW3 is the Circle Inspector of Excise, who detected the offence, PW4 is an excise official, who assisted PW3 in the process of detection, and PW5 is the Excise Inspector, who registered the crime and occurrence report and also investigated the case. PW6 is the Excise Inspector, who submitted final report in court. PW2 examined as an independent witness turned hostile. The initial investigation was conducted by PW1. 8. PW3 and PW4 have given definite and consistent evidence proving the detection in this case including the arrest of the accused and the seizure of 1050 gms of ganja from his possession. They also proved the Ext.P3 detection mahazar, and also the Ext.P4 label on MO1 containing the signature of the accused, and the witnesses. The evidence given by these two witnesses is that during patrol, the excise party led by PW2 saw the accused coming along the Ambedkar Colony Road with a big shopper in his hands. On seeing the excise party, he got perplexed and he made an attempt to conceal the big shopper. On suspicion, the Circle Inspector intercepted him and examined the big shopper. When he opened it, he saw a packet containing some quantity of ganja. When he weighed it, it was found having a weight of 1050 gms. The accused was arrested on the spot and the quantity of ganja along with the big shopper was seized as per Ext.P3 mahazar. The required sample was taken from the total quantity of ganja, and it was packed and sealed at the spot of detection. When he weighed it, it was found having a weight of 1050 gms. The accused was arrested on the spot and the quantity of ganja along with the big shopper was seized as per Ext.P3 mahazar. The required sample was taken from the total quantity of ganja, and it was packed and sealed at the spot of detection. The remaining quantity of ganja was also well packed and sealed, and labels containing the signature of the accused and the witnesses were affixed on the sealed packets. The accused and the properties were taken to the Excise Range Office where the crime and occurrence report was registered by the Excise Inspector-in-charge of the Range. This evidence given by PW3 and PW4 stands not discredited in any manner. PW3 has also given clear evidence regarding the compliance of the provisions of Sections 50 and 57 of the N.D.P.S Act. 9. Ext.P13 report of chemical analysis shows that the sample sent from the court for analysis was detected as ganja. It stands well proved by the evidence of PW3 and PW4 that this sample was taken from the MO1 property seized from the hands of the accused. Both the witnesses clearly identified the MO1 packet containing ganja and bearing the Ext.P4 label. The signature put by the accused on the label was specifically identified and proved as Ext.P4 (a) by PW2. Thus, it stands well proved that the material contained in the MO1 packet was seized from the hands of the accused, and the material therein was identified as ganja. 10. The crime and occurrence report was registered by PW5. Investigation was also conducted by him. PW5 completed the investigation and submitted final report in court. There is nothing to show that there was any sort of irregularity or flaw in the investigation conducted by PW5. The detection was made on 25.5.2000 and the properties were produced in court by PW5 on the next day itself. I find no infirmity on this aspect. The Ext.P8 forwarding note contains the specimen seal affixed on the sample and the other properties. 11. Now the question is whether PW3 had complied with the statutory requirements in this case. He has given definite evidence, corroborated by PW4 that the accused was informed of his right to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Judicial Magistrate. 11. Now the question is whether PW3 had complied with the statutory requirements in this case. He has given definite evidence, corroborated by PW4 that the accused was informed of his right to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Judicial Magistrate. On seeing the accused in suspicious circumstances, trying to conceal the big shopper carried by him, the Circle Inspector decided to search his body. Of course, strictly speaking this is not a case where Section 50 is applicable, because the quantity of ganja was not seized on body search. It was contained in a big shopper carried by the accused openly in his hands. In the case of such a seizure, Section 50 of the N.D.P.S Act is not applicable. Anyway, the Circle Inspector decided to conduct search on the body of the accused and accordingly he was informed of his precious legal right. Notice was given in writing to the accused, informing of his right to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Judicial Magistrate. Ext.P6 is the said notice proved by PW3. His evidence is that the accused consented in writing for search by him and waived his right to be searched in the presence of a Judicial Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. PW3 identified the Ext.P6 (a) as the consent given in writing by the accused at the spot of detection. This evidence stands not challenged. Thus, I find that PW3 had well complied with the provisions of Section 50 of the N.D.P.S Act. 12. Ext.P7 is the report submitted by PW3 under Section 57 of the N.D.P.S Act. This is also well proved by him. It contains an endorsement made by the Assistant Commissioner of Excise showing receipt of the report. This endorsement is also proved by PW3 as Ext.P7(a). The Ext.P7 report will show that this report was sent by PW3 without any delay and the Ext.P7(a) endorsement shows that it was received by the Assistant Commissioner of Excise within time. Ext.P7 report contains all the essential requirements under Section 57 of the N.D.P.S Act like the details of the accused, the details of the crime, the details of the contraband, the date and time of detection, the details of the sampling process etc. Thus, I find that Section 57 of the N.D.P.S Act was also well complied with by PW3 in this case. 13. Thus, I find that Section 57 of the N.D.P.S Act was also well complied with by PW3 in this case. 13. As discussed above, I find that the prosecution has well proved the case beyond reasonable doubt, that at about 2.30 p.m. on 25.5.2000, the accused was found possessing a quantity of 1050 gms of ganja carried in the MO2 big shopper. 14. Now the question of sentence. The substantive sentence imposed by the court below is rigorous imprisonment for 7 years, and the fine sentence is Rs. 50,000/-, but the default sentence is only simple imprisonment for 15 days. I find no reason for interference in the fine sentence, but the jail sentence requires interference by way of reduction, on a consideration of the quantity of ganja, and also the age of the accused at the time of detection. Now he must be aged 57 years. Anyway, I feel that rigorous imprisonment for 1 ½ years will be the adequate sentence in this case. Subject to this reduction, the conviction can be confirmed in appeal. In the result, the conviction against the appellant in S.C 1103/2008 of the court below is confirmed subject to the modification that the conviction shall be under Section 20(b) (ii)B of the N.D.P.S. Act. However, the jail sentence imposed by the trial court will stand reduced to rigorous imprisonment for one and half (1½) years. The fine sentence, with the default sentence thereon imposed by the court below is maintained. The appellant will get the benefit of set off as already ordered by the trial court.