JUDGMENT : The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant/accused/convict (hereinafter referred to as “the accused”) laying challenge to judgment dated 03.03.2017, rendered by learned Special Judge-II, Chamba, District Chamba, H.P, in NDPS Act Sessions Trial Computer Registered No. 4/2014), whereby the accused was convicted. 2. Tersely, the facts of the case, leaving the fiddling details, are summarized as under:- On 23.11.2013, a police team had laid a nakka for traffic checking at Bonkhari Mod. For checking, police stopped HRTC bus, having registration No. HP 73 1394, and when ASI Madan Lal, during checking, reached near seat No. 16, the person sitting on seat No. 16 turned perplexed and hesitated in getting his luggage checked. The police had suspicion that the passenger sitting on seat No. 16 might be carrying some contraband, so Driver, Conductor of the bus and passenger sitting on seat No. 15 were associated as independent witnesses. In presence of the independent witnesses, the aforesaid person disclosed his name as Uttam Chand (accused herein). The accused opted to be searched by the police officials, so before taking personal as well as search of the bag of the accused, police officials gave their personal search to the accused. Thereafter, police searched the bag of the accused and found two polythene bags wrapped in a towel. The polythene bags were found stuffed with stick shaped substance and it was charas. On weighment, the contraband was found to be 800 grams. Thereafter, the police completed all the codal formalities. Recovered contraband was put in the same polythene bags and sealed in a piece of cloth with four seals, having impressions ‘K’. NCB forms, in triplicate, were filled in and facsimile seal ‘K’ was embossed upon the NCB forms. Sample seal was taken on a separate piece of cloth and the seal after its use was handed over to witness Sh. Navjivan Singh. Recovery memo was prepared and rukka was sent to Police Station, Dalhousie, whereupon FIR was registered. Police prepared the spot map and green color bag, towel and the bus ticket were taken into possession. Police recorded the statements of the witnesses and the accused was arrested. Prior to arrest of the accused, his personal search was conducted and after his arrest, he was medically examined at CHC Banikhet. Police prepared the spot map and green color bag, towel and the bus ticket were taken into possession. Police recorded the statements of the witnesses and the accused was arrested. Prior to arrest of the accused, his personal search was conducted and after his arrest, he was medically examined at CHC Banikhet. Case property was handed over to SHO, Police Station Dalhousie for resealing and SHO Sher Singh resealed the parcel with two seals, having impression ‘T’ and sample seal was taken on a piece of cloth and the seal, after its use, was handed over to HC Deepak Kumar. SHO Sher Singh filled columns No. 9 to 11 of the NCB forms and sample seal was also drawn on the NCB forms. The case property was handed over to MHC Deepak Kumar, who deposited the same in the Malkhana and an entry qua the same was made at Sr. No. 117 in register No. 19. Subsequently, MHC Deepak Kumar handed over the sealed parcel, alongwith sample seal, seizure memo, reseal memo and NCB forms in triplicate, to HHC Jagdish Chand, for depositing the same in FSL, Junga, for chemical analysis, who, after depositing the same handed over the RC to MHC Deepak Kumar. On 25.11.2013 ASI Madan Lal, through LHC Kusam Lata, sent a special report to Superintendent of Police, Chamba. Thereafter, ASI Madan Lal recorded the statements of the witnesses and on 13.12.2013 HHC Amrik Singh received a report from FSL, Junga, alongwith the case property, which was handed over to MHC on 16.12.2013. As per the chemical analysis, the recovered substance from the accused was opined to be cannabis and the quantity of resin found therein was 20.21% w/w. After completion of investigation, challan was prepared and presented in the learned Trial Court. 3. The learned Trial Court, vide impugned judgment dated 03.03.2017 convicted the accused and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six years and also to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the commission of the offence punishable under Section 20 of the NDPS Act and in case of default in payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for one year, hence the present appeal preferred by the accused/convict. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as fifteen witnesses. The statement of the accused, under Section 313 Cr.P.C., was recorded and he claimed innocence. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as fifteen witnesses. The statement of the accused, under Section 313 Cr.P.C., was recorded and he claimed innocence. No witness, in defence, was examined by the accused. 5. I have heard Mr. Vinay Thakur, Advocate, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the appellant/accused and Mr. Arvind Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State. 6. The learned Legal Aid Counsel for the accused has argued that the accused has been convicted by the learned Trial Court on the basis of surmises and conjectures. He has further argued that the prosecution has failed to conclusively establish the guilt of the accused. The prosecution has failed to cogently and conclusively establish its case beyond the scope of reasonable doubt, so the appeal be allowed and the accused be acquitted by setting aside the judgment of the learned Trial Court. He has further argued that in the instant case there is no evidence which could cogently establish the guilt of the accused. Alternatively, the learned counsel for the accused has argued that in case the submissions, as made hereinabove, do not find favour, then mitigating circumstances for reduction of the sentence, as imposed by the learned Trial Court, may be considered. The learned counsel for the accused has highlighted some of the mitigating circumstances, viz. (i) the accused has suffered protracted trial for three years, (ii) no other case, under the NDPS Act or any other penal law, is either pending or the accused is convicted in any case, (iii) the accused has already undergone substantial period of sentence and (iv) the accused is the sole bread winner of his family, so considering the mitigating circumstances the sentence of six years, as is imposed upon the accused/convict, by the learned Trial Court, may be reduced. Conversely, learned Additional Advocate General, has argued that the prosecution has cogently and convincingly proved the guilt of the accused beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. He has further argued that minor discrepancies do not create any doubt about the veracity of the prosecution story. He has further argued that the learned Trial Court has properly appreciated the facts and law and the evidence led by the prosecution is not marred by lacunae, so the accused cannot reap the benefit of doubt. He has further argued that minor discrepancies do not create any doubt about the veracity of the prosecution story. He has further argued that the learned Trial Court has properly appreciated the facts and law and the evidence led by the prosecution is not marred by lacunae, so the accused cannot reap the benefit of doubt. He has argued that the judgment rendered by learned Trial Court is not required to be interfered with and the same be upheld. 7. In order to appreciate the rival contentions of the parties, I have gone through the records carefully. 8. The edifice of the prosecution case mainly rests upon two sets of evidence, viz. statements of the independent witnesses, i.e., (i) Sh. Navjiwan Singh (PW-1), conductor of the bus and Sh. Ravinder Nath (PW-2), the then ASI, but coincidently he was travelling in the same bus and sitting on Seat No. 15 in the bus and (ii) statements of the officials prosecution witnesses, who acted in their official capacity. 9. The first set of evidence, i.e. PW-1 and PW-2, on examination of their statements, clearly renders support to the prosecution case. PW-1, Sh. Navjiwan Singh, Conductor of the bus in question, deposed that on 23.11.2013 he, alongwith Driver Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, was en route from Harshu to Indora in bus, having registration No. HP 73 1394, and around 12:10 p.m., when the bus reached Bonkhari Mod, the police had laid a nakka there. Police officials entered the bus from front as well as rear doors and started search operation. During the search, he, alongwith the Driver, was standing outside the bus. Police personnel nabbed the accused with a bag and the accused admitted in his presence that the bag belongs to him. The accused opted to be searched by the police, so consent memo, Ex. PW-1/A, was prepared, which bears his signatures in circle ‘A’. This witness further deposed that witnesses Sh. Sanjeev Kumar (Driver) and Sh. Ravinder Kumar (PW-2) also signed the consent memo. The police as well as the witnesses, prior to conducting the personal search of the accused and search of the recovered bag, gave their personal search to the accused and in this regard memo, Ex. PW-1/B, was prepared, which bears his signatures and the signatures of the witnesses. Ravinder Kumar (PW-2) also signed the consent memo. The police as well as the witnesses, prior to conducting the personal search of the accused and search of the recovered bag, gave their personal search to the accused and in this regard memo, Ex. PW-1/B, was prepared, which bears his signatures and the signatures of the witnesses. He has further deposed that police opened the bag and found a towel having two polythene bags in it and the said polythene bags were black and stuffed with some substance in the shape of sticks. On weighment, the recovered substance was found to be 800 grams. On the basis of smell and experience, the police found the recovered substance to be charas, so the recovered contraband was sealed in the same parcel with seal having impression ‘K’. The parcel was taken in possession vide memo, Ex. PW-1/C, which bears his signatures, and the facsimile seal was taken on a white piece of cloth, Ex. PW-1/D, which also bears his signatures in circle ‘A’. He has further deposed that Driver, another witness and the accused also signed the memos. After sealing the parcel, the seal was handed over to him, police took into possession the ticket, bag and towel of the accused, vide memo Ex.PW-1/E, which bears his signatures in circle ‘A’ and the signatures of Driver and the accused. This witness, while being examined in the Court, identified the bus tickets to be same issued to the accused, which are Ex. PW-1/F-1 to F-3. This witness identified in the Court two polythene bags, Ex. P-2 and P-3, cannabis, Ex. P-4, a green colour rucksack, Ex. P-5, and a towel, Ex. P-6. Though this witness was extensively cross-examined by the defence, but nothing fruitful could be elicited from him. 10. Other independent witness PW-2, Sh. Ravinder Nath, the then ASI, who coincidently was sitting in the same bus at Seat No. 15, is an important witness. Though the learned counsel for the accused argued that deposition of this witness cannot be relied on, as he is an official witness. Admittedly, PW2 is a police official, but coincidently he, being a traveler, was travelling in the same bus and sitting at Seat No. 15, besides the seat of the accused, so it cannot be said that the version of this witness can be straightaway discarded only for the reason that he is a police official. Admittedly, PW2 is a police official, but coincidently he, being a traveler, was travelling in the same bus and sitting at Seat No. 15, besides the seat of the accused, so it cannot be said that the version of this witness can be straightaway discarded only for the reason that he is a police official. 11. PW-2, Sh. Ravinder Nath, deposed that on 23.11.2013, at 06:30 a.m., he boarded bus, having registration No. HP 73 1394, from Bharmour en route from Hashu to Indora for attending the Court. He has further deposed that around 12:10 p.m., when the bus reached at Bonkhari Mod, the police had laid a nakka there and the police stopped the bus for checking. Police officials entered the bus from the front as well as rear doors and the search operation ensued. He was sitting on seat No. 15 and a police official asked the accused, who was sitting on seat No. 16 and holding a bag on his legs, to give search of his bag, on this the accused became baffled. Police asked him (PW-2), Driver and Conductor of the bus to come out and in their presence the accused divulged his name as Uttam Chand. As the police had apprehension that the accused might have some contraband, he was apprised of his right to be searched before a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer, but he consented to be searched by ASI/police party. Police prepared consent memo, Ex. PW-1/A, whereupon the accused made his consent and he (PW-2), Driver and Conductor also signed the same. Prior to the search of the bag of the accused and his personal search, police personnel and the witnesses gave their personal search and in this regard memo, Ex. PW-1/B, was prepared, which was signed by him, Driver, Conductor, accused and by the police party. Thereafter, ASI conducted the search of the bag of the accused, whereupon ‘Dzire’ was written, and on opening the bag two black polythene bags wrapped in a towel were found. The polythene bags were found stuffed with some black hard substance, which was in the shape of sticks and on weighment it was found to be 800 grams. The recovered substance was found to be charas, so it was sealed in the same bag with seal having impression ‘K’. The polythene bags were found stuffed with some black hard substance, which was in the shape of sticks and on weighment it was found to be 800 grams. The recovered substance was found to be charas, so it was sealed in the same bag with seal having impression ‘K’. Thereafter, the police prepared the NCB forms, in triplicate, and embossed the seal, having impression ‘K’ on the NCB forms. Facsimile seal was also taken on a piece of cloth, which is Ex. PW-1/D, and the recovered contraband was taken into possession, vide memo Ex. PW-1/C. Recovery memo, Ex. PW-1/C, was signed by him, driver, Conductor and the accused and the seal, after its use, was handed over to Conductor (PW-1). Police prepared the spot map and entire proceedings were videographed by HC Inder Singh. This witness also identified two polythene bags, Ex. P-2 and P-3, cannabis, P-4, green rucksack, Ex.P-5 and towel, Ex. P6, in the Court, in presence of the accused. This witness, in his cross-examination, deposed that while the police were carrying-out search operation in the bus, he, Driver and the Conductor of the bus were inside the bus. PW-2 was also extensively cross-examined by the defence, but nothing fruitful came out from him. Though, the defence has argued that there is variance between the statements of PW-1 and PW-2, as PW-1 categorically deposed that while the search operation was being carried-out, he and the driver of the bus were standing outside the bus, whereas, PW-2 deposed that while the search operation was being carried-out, he, Driver and the Conductor of the bus were inside. This Court finds that such a trivial variance has no effect on the prosecution case, as such trivial variances are bound to occur. Humans cannot portray an incident, which they witnessed, with mathematical precision and parrot like verbatim depositions cannot be accepted from witnesses, who witnessed an occurrence or participated in police proceedings. Thus, the argument that there is variance in the depositions of PW-1 and PW-2 is unfounded and cannot be accepted. 12. After examining the first set of evidence, i.e., the versions of PW-1 and PW-2, independent witnesses, this Court finds that their versions completely corroborate with each other and there is no contradiction, variance etc., benefit of which can be given to the accused. 13. The second set of evidence is of official prosecution witnesses. 12. After examining the first set of evidence, i.e., the versions of PW-1 and PW-2, independent witnesses, this Court finds that their versions completely corroborate with each other and there is no contradiction, variance etc., benefit of which can be given to the accused. 13. The second set of evidence is of official prosecution witnesses. ASI Madan Lal, Investigating Officer, was examined as PW-14, and he deposed that on 23.11.2013 he, alongwith HC Inder Singh (PW-3), HC Bhagwan Chand (PW-6) and Constable Subhash Chand (PW-4), was present at Bonkhari Mod for nakabandi and traffic checking, upon the direction of SDPO, Dalhousie and to this effect rapat, Ex. PW-9/A, was entered in P.P. Banikhet. He has further deposed that around 12:10 p.m. HRTC bus, having registration No. HP 73 1394, en route Harshu to Indora came and Constable Subhash stopped it. For the purpose of checking the bus, he (PW-14) entered from the front door and HC Bhagwan Chand (PW-6) and HC Inder Singh (PW-6) entered from the rear door. While checking, when he reached at seat No. 16, the passenger sitting on it turned perplex and hesitated to get his luggage checked. The police had apprehension that the said person (accused) might be having some suspicious articles, so, Driver, Conductor and passenger sitting on seat No. 15 were associated and the accused was made to alight from the bus. The accused disclosed his name as Uttam Chand and he was apprised of his right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate, but he consented to be searched by the police officials present on the spot, so consent memo, Ex. PW-1/A, was prepared. Prior to the personal search and search of the bag of the accused, police and the witnesses gave their personal search and the accused also took the search of the IO kit and qua this memo, Ex. PW-1/B, was prepared. He has further deposed that the bag of the accused, whereupon ‘Dzire’ was written, was opened and a brown towel, wherein two polythene bags were wrapped, was found. The said polythene bags, on being checked, were found stuffed with black hard substance in the shape of sticks. The recovered black hard substance was charas and on weighment it was found to be 800grams. The said polythene bags, on being checked, were found stuffed with black hard substance in the shape of sticks. The recovered black hard substance was charas and on weighment it was found to be 800grams. Thereafter, the contraband was put in the same polythene bags and the polythene bags were sealed in a piece of cloth with a seal, having impression ‘K’. Thereafter, he filled the NCB form, in triplicate, sample seal, Ex. PW-1/D, was drawn and the seal, after its use, was handed over to PW-1. Recovery memo, Ex. PW-1/C, was prepared and he sent rukka, Ex. PW8/A, to Police Station, Dalhousie for registration of FIR. As per this witness, rukka was also sent to Superintendent of Police, through Constable Subhash Chand (PW-4), for information. He prepared spot map, Ex. PW-14/A, and the incriminating material was taken into possession vide memo, Ex. PW-1/E. Statements of witnesses, i.e., Sh. Navjiwan Singh (PW-1), Sh. Ravinder Kumar and Sh. Sanjiv Kumar were recorded by this witness (PW14). The accused was arrested, vide memo, Ex. PW-14/B, his personal search was conducted, vide memo, Ex. PW-6/A, and medically examined at CHC, Banikhet. HC Inder Singh handed over case file to him at Banikhet Chowk and subsequently the seized articles were produced at Police Station, Dalhousie and the case property was handed over to SHO, Police Station, Dalhousie for resealing. On 25.11.2013, ASI Madan Lal sent Special Report, Ex. PW-13/B, to Superintendent of Police, Chamba, through LHC Kusam Lata. This witness has further deposed that he recorded the statements of witnesses, namely LHC Kusam Lata (PW-5), HC Deepak Kumar (PW-7), HHC Amrik Singh (PW-11), HHC Jagdish Singh (PW-15) and HC Bhagwan Chand (PW-6). After receipt of Chemical Report, Ex. PX, he handed over the case file to SHO Sher Singh, who prepared the challan and presented in the Court. 14. HC Inder Singh, PW-3, corroborated the version of PW-14. This witness deposed that PW-14 prepared rukka, Ex. PW-3/A, and it was given to him for delivering the same at Police Station, Dalhousie. He delivered the rukka, whereupon FIR was registered and thereafter he handed over the case file to the Investigating Officer. PW-4, Constable Subhash Chand, also supported the prosecution case by deposing qua the recovery of the contraband from the possession of the accused. PW-5, LHC Kusam Lata, handed over Special report to Superintendent of Police, Chamba, on 25.11.2013. He delivered the rukka, whereupon FIR was registered and thereafter he handed over the case file to the Investigating Officer. PW-4, Constable Subhash Chand, also supported the prosecution case by deposing qua the recovery of the contraband from the possession of the accused. PW-5, LHC Kusam Lata, handed over Special report to Superintendent of Police, Chamba, on 25.11.2013. PW-6, HHC Bhagwan Chand is a formal witness and he only deposed qua jamatalashi, Ex. PW6/A, after the arrest of the accused. PW-9 HHC Chaman Singh entered rapat, Ex. PW-9/A, qua the departure of ASI Madan Lal (PW-14) alongwith the police officials on 23.11.2013. PW-10, LHC Suraksha Devi, entered rapat, Ex. PW-10/A, and Ex.PW10/B on 23.11.2013. PW-11, HHC Amrik Singh, on 16.12.2013, after the receipt of the result of chemical examination and case property from FSL, Junga, deposited the same with MHC (PW-7). PW-12, Sh. Anjeet Singh, Clerk HRTC, is a formal witness, and he proved log book, Ex. PW-12/B, of bus No. HP 73 1394 and the copy of duty register, Ex. PW-12/A. PW-13, HHC Rajesh Kumar, Reader to Superintendent of Police, Chamba, proved copy of rukka, Ex. PW-13/A, and special report, Ex. PW-13/B, which were entered by him in a register, vide entries made at Sr. No. 16730 on 23.11.2013 and 16785 on 25.11.2012, respectively. PW-15, HC Jagdish Chand, deposed qua deposit of the case property at FSL, Junga. PW-7, the then MHC, Police Station Dalhousie, deposed that on 23.11.2013 ASI Madan Lal (PW-14) handed over the case property and four seal impressions of seal ‘K’ to SHO Sher Singh (PW-8) for resealing, who resealed the same with two seals, having impression ‘T’. Facsimile seal ‘T’, Ex. PW-7/A, was drawn on back side of sample seal ‘K’, Ex. PW-1/D. After resealing, the case property was handed over to him, which he deposited in the malkhana and qua this an entry was made at Sr. No. 117 in the malakhana register No. 199, Ex. PW-7/B. On 24.11.2013 he sent the case property to FSL, Junga, through HHC Jagdish Chand (PW-15). He prepared reseal memo, Ex. PW-7/E, which was signed by PW-7. On 23.11.2013, PW-8 received rukka, Ex. PW-8/A, whereupon FIR, Ex. PW-8/B, was lodged and he made an endorsement on rukka, which is Ex. PW-8/C. Subsequently, he prepared the case file and handed over the same to HC Inder Singh (PW-3). 15. He prepared reseal memo, Ex. PW-7/E, which was signed by PW-7. On 23.11.2013, PW-8 received rukka, Ex. PW-8/A, whereupon FIR, Ex. PW-8/B, was lodged and he made an endorsement on rukka, which is Ex. PW-8/C. Subsequently, he prepared the case file and handed over the same to HC Inder Singh (PW-3). 15. After exhaustively discussing the depositions of the official prosecution witnesses, it can be safely held that there is hardly any loophole in the versions of the officials witnesses. In fact, their version is in perfect harmony with each other and not marred with contradictions, loopholes and improvements. The learned counsel for the accused, though argued that PW-2, ASI Ravinder Nath, is not an independent witness and his deposition must be seen as of an official witness. This argument of the learned counsel for the accused has no weight, as PW-2 himself stated that on 23.11.2013, at 06:30 a.m., he boarded bus, having registration No. HP 73 1394, from Bharmour en route from Hashu to Indora, for attending the Court. He has further deposed that around 12:10 p.m., bus reached at Bonkhari Mod, where the police had laid a nakka and the bus was stopped for checking. He was sitting on seat No. 15 and the accused was sitting on seat No. 16. The accused has kept a bag on his legs and on being asked by the police to give search of his bag, he turned perplex, so on suspicion he was asked to come out of the bus. This witness has further deposed that in his presence and in presence of driver and conductor of the bus, police recovered 800 grams of charas from the bag of the accused. Merely, the fact that PW-2 is a police officer cannot make his version doubtful. In fact, PW-2 is the most natural witness, as he was travelling in the same bus and sitting besides the accused. Thus, after examining the version of PW-2, it cannot be said that he acted in his official capacity, rather it is more than safe to hold that coincidentally PW-2 was travelling in the same bus, wherein accused was travelling, and he was sitting on seat No. 15 and accused was sitting on seat No. 16. The version of PW-2 can only be seen as of an independent witness and not as an official prosecution witness. 16. The version of PW-2 can only be seen as of an independent witness and not as an official prosecution witness. 16. After close scrutiny of the depositions of the prosecution witnesses, no loopholes or lacunae are found in the prosecution story, contrarily, the prosecution story is in complete harmony. Therefore, the only conclusion of the above discussion is that the learned Trial Court has rightly convicted the accused for the commission of the offence punishable under Section 20 of the ND&PS Act and the impugned judgment is an outcome of proper appreciation of law and evidence, so the same does not need any interference by this Court. However, before parting, this Court deems it fit and proper to examine the contention of the learned counsel for the accused that in case this Court finds that the appeal has no merits, than following mitigating circumstances may be considered for reducing the sentence, as imposed upon the accused by the learned Trial Court : (i) the accused has suffered protracted trial for three years; (ii) no other case, under the NDPS Act or any other penal law, is either pending or the accused is convicted in any case; (iii) the accused has already undergone substantial period of sentence; and (iv) the accused is the sole bread winner of his family, To support his arguments he has relied upon a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court, rendered in S.K. Sakkar @ Mannan vs. State of West Bengal, 2021 (1) Him L.R. (SC) 1178, relevant paras whereof, for the sake of ready reference, are extracted hereunder : “9. Faced with this, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant relies upon several mitigating circumstances to persuade us to reduce the sentence period. He passionately urges that: (i) the appellant has suffered protracted trial for more than 23 years; (ii) he alone has been convicted while his co-accused are acquitted; (iii) the appellant was not involved in any other case under the NDPS Act or other Penal Laws; (iv) the appellant has already undergone actual sentence of 2 years 4 months and 16 days out of the total sentence of five years; (v) and that the appellant has not misused the concession of bail granted by this Court on 02.11.2012. 10. We find some merit in the submission noticed above. 10. We find some merit in the submission noticed above. It may be noted that the appellant committed the crime in the year 1997, i.e. much before the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Amendment) Act, 2001 came into force. The punishment for contravention in relation to cannabis plant or any other provision of the NDPS Act, in his case, would thus be regulated by the unamended Section 20 of the NDPS Act, as it stood before the amendment of 2001 and which reads as follows: “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 license 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 ganja or the cultivation of cannabis plant, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to find which may extend to fifty thousand rupees; (ii) where such contravention relates to cannabis other than ganja, 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 find 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 eb recorded in the judgment, impose a fine exceeding two lakh rupees.” 11. It is manifest from Section 20(i) of NDPS Act (as it stood in 1997), that even though a maximum sentence of five years RI and a fine of upto Rs. 50,000/- was prescribed but there was no minimum mandatory sentence. The Legislature had in its wisdom left it to the judicious discretion of a court to award the minimum sentence albeit guided by the well known principles on the proportionality of sentence. Taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, it appears to us that the ends of justice would be adequately met if the appellant’s sentence is reduced to the extent of the period he has already undergone. We order accordingly. 12. Taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, it appears to us that the ends of justice would be adequately met if the appellant’s sentence is reduced to the extent of the period he has already undergone. We order accordingly. 12. For the reason(s) stated above, the appeal is allowed in part; the impugned judgments of the Special Judge and the High Court are modified and the sentence of five years RI awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone.” The judgment (supra), as referred by the learned counsel for the accused, is partly applicable to the facts of the instant case, but not fully, as the accused in the judgment (supra) suffered protracted trial of more than 23 years, whereas the trial of the accused herein concluded in approximately three years, so it cannot be said that the accused suffered protracted trial. However, the record nowhere reflects that the accused is involved in any other NDPS case or other penal laws. Admittedly, the accused is currently in jail and he has preferred the instant appeal from jail and by now he has already undergone considerable sentence out of the total sentence of six years. Therefore, there are some mitigating circumstances which this Court need to consider while examining this facet of the case. 17. Admittedly, 800 grams of cannabis was recovered from the conscious and exclusive possession of the accused, which is lesser than commercial quantity, but greater than small quantity and rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years and with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees is provided under Section 20(B) of the NDPS Act. A bare reading of Section 20(B) of the NDPS Act shows that the word “may” has been used purposefully, and the Legislature has deliberately left it to the judicious discretion of the Court concerned to award the sentence under this Section, which may go upto ten years, but not more than ten years. A bare reading of Section 20(B) of the NDPS Act shows that the word “may” has been used purposefully, and the Legislature has deliberately left it to the judicious discretion of the Court concerned to award the sentence under this Section, which may go upto ten years, but not more than ten years. So, considering the mitigating circumstances that the accused has already undergone substantial chunk of his imprisonment, there is nothing on record that the accused is involved in any other NDPS case or any other penal laws, also the fact that the accused is sole bread winner of his family and also considering the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court, rendered in S.K. Sakkar @ Mannan vs. State of West Bengal, 2021 (1) Him L.R. (SC) 1178, as referred hereinabove, this Court finds that the ends of justice would only be sub served in case the rigorous imprisonment for a period of six years, as imposed by the learned Trial Court, vide impugned judgment dated 03.03.2017, is reduced to five years. Accordingly, the sentence, as imposed by the learned Trial Court upon the accused/convict, is modified. 18. For the reasons, which have been recorded hereinabove, the appeal is partly allowed and the accused/convict is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- for the commission of offence punishable under Section 20 of the ND&PS Act and in case of default of payment of fine, the accused/convict shall undergo simple imprisonment for one year. It goes without saying that the period of detention, during the investigation, inquiry and trial, and the period of sentence, as imposed by the learned Trial Court, already undergone, would be set off against the modified term of sentence, as aforesaid. 19. In view of the above, the appeal stands disposed of, so also pending application(s), if any. Records be sent back forthwith.