JUDGMENT : Questioning the judgment dated 15-02-2018 in N.D.P.S.S.C.No.13 of 2017 passed by learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor (for short, 'the Court below'), the appellants-accused Nos. 1 to 3 filed the present appeal before this Court. 2. Heard Sri D.Purna Chandra Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellants-accused Nos. 1 to 3, and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. 3. Case of the prosecution as emanated from the evidence of prosecution witnesses is as follows : Accused Nos. 1 and 2 are residents of Cheligar Village, Odisha State, and accused No. 3 is resident of Hanumantha Vadi Village, Bidar District, Karnataka State. On 30-03-2017 at about 5 a.m., on receipt of credible information about transportation of Ganja, P.W.1-Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Tirupati Urban, informed the same to the Superintendent, Prohibition and Excise, Tirupati. Subsequently, on instructions, P.W.1 contacted Tahsildar-cum-Mandal Executive Magistrate, Tirupati Urban, to depute Village Revenue Officer and Village Revenue Assistant to act as mediators. P.W.1 took P.W.4-Village Revenue Officer and another to act as mediators. P.W.1 along with her staff and P.W.4 and another mediator hired a vehicle bearing registration No. AP 03 TV 7056 and reached the scene of offence, which is situated at a distance of 100' south-east railway garage, Rayalacheruvu railway gate, at about 6 a.m. There, P.W.1 and mediators found accused Nos. 1 to 3 in possession of one black colour bag each. On observing them, accused Nos. 1 to 3 tried to escape from that place but P.W.1 apprehended accused Nos. 1 to 3 with the help of her staff. On questioning, accused No. 3 stated that they were in possession of dry Ganja and as such, they were trying to escape from the scene. Thereafter, P.W.1 searched accused Nos. 1 to 3 in the presence of P.W.4 and another mediator and found Ganja. P.W.1 informed accused Nos. 1 to 3 whether they were to be searched in the presence of Judicial Magistrate or Gazetted Officer. On that, accused Nos. 1 to 3 stated that they had no objection to conduct search in the presence of P.W.1 who is also a Gazetted Officer. Then, P.W.1 served a notice on accused Nos. 1 to 3 and the same is marked as Ex.P1. Ex.P2 is consent letter given by accused Nos. 1 to 3. On that, accused Nos. 1 to 3 stated that they had no objection to conduct search in the presence of P.W.1 who is also a Gazetted Officer. Then, P.W.1 served a notice on accused Nos. 1 to 3 and the same is marked as Ex.P1. Ex.P2 is consent letter given by accused Nos. 1 to 3. Thereafter, P.W.1 issued search proceedings to each accused and the same are marked as Exs.P3 to P5. P.W.1 along with mediators signed on Ex.P1. On search, P.W.1 found 3 K.Gs. of Ganja in possession of accused No. 1 and P.W.1 seized the same in the presence of mediators. M.O.1 is bag of accused No. 1 and M.O.2 is 3 K.Gs. of Ganja found from the possession of accused No. 1. When the bag of accused No. 2 was searched, P.W.1 found 3 K.Gs. of Ganja from the possession of accused No. 2. M.O.3 is bag of accused No. 2 and M.O.4 is 3 K.Gs. of Ganja found from the possession of accused No. 2. Thereafter, when the bag of accused No. 3 was searched, P.W.1 found 2 K.Gs. of Ganja from the possession of accused No. 3. M.O.5 is bag of accused No. 3 and M.O.6 is 2 K.Gs. of Ganja found from the possession of accused No. 3. P.W.1 collected 100 grams from each bag and affixed identity slips signed by her, mediators and concerned accused on each bag. M.Os. 7 to 9 are three sample packets. When P.W.1 questioned accused Nos. 1 to 3 about source of Ganja, the latter disclosed that they purchased the contraband at Odisha for lesser amount and going to Katpadi to sell the same at higher price. P.W.1 prepared Ex.P6-rough sketch in the presence of mediators. A mediators report was also prepared which is marked as Ex.P7. Thereafter, P.W.1 arrested all the accused and remanded them to judicial custody. Ex.P9 is FIR. P.W.1 forwarded the samples for chemical analysis and further investigation was handed over to P.W.3. On 20-06-2017, P.W.3-Sub-Inspector, Prohibition and Excise, received C.D. file. After receipt of analyst report-Ex.P10, P.W.3 filed charge sheet. 4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and marked Exs.P1 to P10 and M.Os.1 to 9. Plea of the accused was one of denial. On 20-06-2017, P.W.3-Sub-Inspector, Prohibition and Excise, received C.D. file. After receipt of analyst report-Ex.P10, P.W.3 filed charge sheet. 4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and marked Exs.P1 to P10 and M.Os.1 to 9. Plea of the accused was one of denial. Accepting the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4, the Court below convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 8 (c) read with Section 20 (b) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years each and also to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- each, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year each. 5. Today when the matter is taken up, Sri D. Purna Chandra Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellants-accused Nos. 1 to 3, submits that he does not want to argue the matter on merits and he is only requesting this Court to reduce the sentence of imprisonment. He further submits that the accused have already served substantial part of sentence i.e. 06 years 10 months 08 days and that the accused are indigent persons and they are unable to pay the fine amount as directed by the Court below and therefore the same may be reduced taking a lenient view. 6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has produced nominal rolls of the accused dated 31-01-2024 furnished by the Superintendent of Jails, Central Prison, Kadapa, wherein it is clearly stated that each accused served 06 years 10 months 08 days of sentence as on 31-01-2024. 7. This Court perused the entire material available on record. As seen from the record, the accused have served substantial part of sentence i.e. 06 years 10 months 08 days each as against 07 years rigorous imprisonment imposed by the Court below and the remaining part of sentence is only 01 month 22 days. Therefore, having regard to the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants-accused Nos. 1 to 3, this Court is inclined to take a lenient view with regard to sentence alone. 8. Accordingly, while confirming the conviction, sentence of imprisonment imposed against the appellants-accused Nos. Therefore, having regard to the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants-accused Nos. 1 to 3, this Court is inclined to take a lenient view with regard to sentence alone. 8. Accordingly, while confirming the conviction, sentence of imprisonment imposed against the appellants-accused Nos. 1 to 3 by judgment dated 15-02-2018 in N.D.P.S.S.C.No.13 of 2017 on the file of the Court of learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor, is reduced from seven years to the period already undergone by them and the fine amount is also reduced from Rs.25,000/- each to Rs.5,000/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month each. 9. With the above modification with regard to sentence, the criminal appeal is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand dismissed in consequence.