JUDGMENT : Sanjay Karol, J. Trial Court, vide order dated 2.5.2018, passed in Case No.2-R/3 of 2017, titled as State v. Jindu Ram, convicted accused-respondent Jindu Ram (hereinafter referred to as the accused) for having committed an offence, punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), for having been found in conscious possession of 798 grams of Charas, and sentenced him to imprisonment already undergone by him, during investigation and trial of the case, and to pay fine of Rs.40,000/-, and in default thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of four months. 2. Aggrieved by the inadequacy of the sentence, so imposed by the trial Court, the State has preferred the present appeal, under the provisions of Section 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for enhancement of sentence. 3. After considering its several judicial pronouncements, i.e. Satish Kumar Jayanti Lal Dabgar v. State of Gujarat, (2015) 7 SCC 359 ; Sumer Singh v. Suraj Bhan Singh, (2014) 7 SCC 323 ; Gopal Singh v. State of Uttarakhand; (2013) 7 SCC 545 ; Hazara Singh v. Raj Kumar, (2013) 9 SCC 516 ; Guru Basavaraj v. State of Karnataka, (2012) 8 SCC 734 ; Jameel v. State of U.P., (2010) 12 SCC 532 ; Ahmed Hussein Vali Mohammad Saiyed v. State of Gujarat, (2009) 7 SCC 254 ; Shailesh Jaswantbhai v. State of Gujarat, (2006) 2 SCC 359 ; Aero Traders Pvt. Ltd. v. Ravinder Kumar Suri, (2004) 8 SCC 307 ; Ramji Dayawala & sons (P) Ltd. v. Invest Import, (1981) 1 SCC 80 , the Apex Court in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Nirmala Devi, (2017) 7 SCC 262 , has culled out the following principles: (i) Imprisonment is one of the methods used to handle the convicts in such a way to protect and prevent them to commit further crimes for a specific period of time and also to prevent others from committing crime on them out of vengeance. The concept of punishing the criminals by imprisonment has recently been changed to treatment and rehabilitation with a view to modify the criminal tendency among them. (ii) There are many philosophies behind such sentencing justifying these penal consequences. The philosophical/ jurisprudential justification can be retribution, incapacitation, specific deterrence, general deterrence, rehabilitation, or restoration. The concept of punishing the criminals by imprisonment has recently been changed to treatment and rehabilitation with a view to modify the criminal tendency among them. (ii) There are many philosophies behind such sentencing justifying these penal consequences. The philosophical/ jurisprudential justification can be retribution, incapacitation, specific deterrence, general deterrence, rehabilitation, or restoration. Any of the above or a combination thereof can be the goal of sentencing. (iii) Notwithstanding the above theories of punishment, when it comes to sentencing a person for committing a heinous crime, the deterrence theory as a rationale for punishing the offender becomes more relevant. In such cases, the role of mercy, forgiveness and compassion becomes secondary. (iv) In such cases where the deterrence theory has to prevail, while determining the quantum of sentence, discretion lies with the Court. While exercising such a discretion, the Court has to govern itself by reason and fair play, and discretion is not to be exercised according to whim and caprice. It is the duty of the Court to impose adequate sentence, for one of the purposes of imposition of requisite sentence is protection of the society and a legitimate response to the collective conscience. (v) While considering as to what would be the appropriate quantum of imprisonment, the Court is empowered to take into consideration mitigating circumstances, as well as aggravating circumstances. 4. Section 20 of the Act is reproduced as under: “20. Punishment for contravention in relation to cannabis plant and cannabis.- Whoever, in contravention of any provision of this Act or any rule or order made or condition of licence granted thereunder.- (a) cultivates any cannabis plant; or (b) produces, manufactures, possesses, sells, purchases, transports, imports inter-State, exports inter-State or uses cannabis, shall be punishable - (i) where such contravention relates to Clause (a) with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to one lakh rupees; and (ii) where such contravention relates to sub-clause (b),- (A) and involves small quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year. or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both; (B) and involves quantity lesser than commercial quantity but greater than small quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees; (C) and involves commercial quantity, 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 but 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.” 5. We notice that Section 20, reproduced supra, prescribes punishment for contravention, in relation to (a) cultivation of cannabis plant, and (b) production, manufacture, possession, sale, purchase, transport, imports, etc. 6. In relation to the first part, by virtue of sub-clause (i) clause (a) of Section 20 of the Act, the trial Court is vested with the discretion of imposing punishment of rigorous imprisonment, which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to pay fine, which may extend to one lakh rupees. 7. With regard to the later part, one notices that the Section is split into three parts - where the quantity is small, punishment of rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extent to one year or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees or with both. What would be small quantity is prescribed under Section 2(xxiiia) of the Act. 8. If the offence is for commercial quantity, then the rigorous imprisonment shall not be less than ten years, but may extend to twenty years and shall also be liable to fine, which shall not be less than one lakh rupees, but which may extend to two lakh rupees. In exceptional cases, this amount can exceed the said amount. 9. There is third fact situation envisaged under the Act and that being where the quantity involved is less than commercial but greater than small quantity. The statute provides leeway for imposition of penalty, which is rigorous imprisonment for a term upto ten years and also fine which may extend upto one lakh rupees. 10. 9. There is third fact situation envisaged under the Act and that being where the quantity involved is less than commercial but greater than small quantity. The statute provides leeway for imposition of penalty, which is rigorous imprisonment for a term upto ten years and also fine which may extend upto one lakh rupees. 10. In the instant case, we find the trial Court to have imposed a sentence, which is not in the light of the aforesaid principles laid down by the Apex Court. The reasons assigned are (a) that the accused-convict is a first offender, (b) that he is the sole bread earner of the family, and (c) honest admission of guilt. 11. Now, this alone cannot be parameters for deciding the quantum of sentence. Neither there is any proof of the second factor nor is there any discussion as to why under the circumstances, where the case property, which was almost touching the commercial quantity, the accused be sentenced for smaller quantity. 12. In view of the same, the impugned order dated 2.5.2018, passed by the trial Court in Case No.2-R/3 of 2017, titled as State v. Jindu Ram, is quashed and set aside. We remand the matter back to the trial Court for consideration afresh. The trial Court shall, after carefully appreciating the material placed on record by the parties, pass a fresh order on the issue of quantum of sentence, be it imprisonment or imposition of fine, in accordance with law. This he shall positively do within a period of four weeks from the date of appearance of the parties. 13. The parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 20.11.2018. Appeal stands disposed of, so also pending application(s), if any.