JUDGMENT : VIMAL K. VYAS, J. 1. This enhancement appeal is being filed by the State under Section 418 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 09.07.2024 passed by the learned Special (NDPS) Judge and 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Banaskantha at Deesa, in Special (NDPS) Case No.12 of 2021, whereby the learned Special Judge convicted the respondent-appellant (i.e. the original accused no.1) for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) and 17(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 354D(1)(i) of the Indian Penal Code, 1985, and sentenced him as under : Section under NDPS Act Imprisonment Fine Amount In default of payment of fine 8(c), 17(b) Rigorous Imprisonment for three years 10,000 Simple Imprisonment for six months 2. The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is as under : (i) That on 21.06.2021 while the G.R.D. Dineshkumar Samartaji Chaudhari and others were on duty and checking the vehicles at the Nenava Check Post, at that time, the present respondent-accused was found sitting on the rear seat of the Eco car with conscious possession of opium weighing 409 grams. On asking to produce the permit/license, the respondent-accused failed to produce it. Thereafter, the samples were taken and the same were sent for the examination. During the course of inquiry, statements of the witnesses conversant with the incident were recorded and during the investigation, the name of the co-accused, namely, Aashanbhai Vishnaji Mali was disclosed. (ii) That a complaint came to be lodged against the present respondent-accused at the Dhanera Police Station, District Banaskantha, for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 17(b) and 29 of the NDPS Act, which was registered as I-CR No.11195018210713 of 2021. (iii) That pursuant to the FIR, the investigation was carried out, and during the investigation, the necessary panchnamas were drawn and the statements of the witnesses conversant with the incident were recorded. After the completion of the investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed against the present respondent-accused for the offences punishable under the provisions of the NDPS Act before the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Banaskantha at Deesa, which was registered as Special (NDPS) Case No.12 of 2021. (iv) The learned Additional Sessions Judge framed the Charge vide Exh.18 against the present respondent-accused, whereupon the respondent-accused pleaded innocent and claimed to be tried. 3. (iv) The learned Additional Sessions Judge framed the Charge vide Exh.18 against the present respondent-accused, whereupon the respondent-accused pleaded innocent and claimed to be tried. 3. To bring home the charge against the respondent-accused, the prosecution examined, in all, 16 witnesses and adduced 44 documentary evidence in support of the case, which are as follow: WITNESSES NO. NAME EXHIBIT 1. Visaji Sagnathji Rathod, P.S.O. 23 2. Dhirendra Naranbhai Panchal, Circle Officer 28 3. Parasmal Mafaram Parmar, Eco Driver 35 4. Jitendrakumar Devabhai Dabhi, Panch 41 5. Gulabsinh Kalusinh Waghela, Weighing Machine Panch Witness 54 6. Deep Manharkumar Patel, Scientific Officer 58 7. Rasengbhai Khanabhai Chaudhari, Complainant 63 8. Naranbhai Ghudabhai, Writer Head 66 9. Sureshbhai Haribhai Fof, Police Witness 69 10. Kantibhai Ganeshbhai, Driver of the Government Vehicle 73 11. Jitendrakumar Bhathibhai Chaudhari, Raiding Party Officer 78 12. Karankumar Dardhabhai Chaudhari, Panch 87 13. Jorsinh Bhupatsinh Kalma, Check Post Witness 90 14. Govindbhai Narnaji Patel, Police Witness 93 15. Rituben Manojkumar Sharma, F.S.L. Officer 98 16. Bharbhai Chhelabhai Chhatraliya, I.O. 103 17 Aabadkhan Dadmiya Ghasura, I.O. 104 DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE SR. NO. Kantibhai Ganeshbhai, Driver of the Government Vehicle 73 11. Jitendrakumar Bhathibhai Chaudhari, Raiding Party Officer 78 12. Karankumar Dardhabhai Chaudhari, Panch 87 13. Jorsinh Bhupatsinh Kalma, Check Post Witness 90 14. Govindbhai Narnaji Patel, Police Witness 93 15. Rituben Manojkumar Sharma, F.S.L. Officer 98 16. Bharbhai Chhelabhai Chhatraliya, I.O. 103 17 Aabadkhan Dadmiya Ghasura, I.O. 104 DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE SR. NO. DESCRIPTION OF THE DOCUMENT EXHIBIT 1 Original copy of Mark 9/1 24 2 Original copy of the Extract of the Station Diary 25 3 Yadi for preparing map Mark 9/30 29 4 Map of the scene of offence Mark 9/31 30 5 Panchnama of raid Mark 9/3 42 6 Chit carrying signatures of the Panchas 43 7 Chit carrying signatures of the Panchas 44 8 Chit carrying signatures of the Panchas 45 9 Resolution under Section 50 Mark 9/7 46 10 Letter Mark 9/8 47 11 Search Resolution under Section 42(1) Mark 9/9 48 12 Seizure Memo Mark 9/15 49 13 Order of allocation/assignation of panchas Mark 9/6 50 14 Yadi for allocation/assignation of panchas Mark 9/5 51 15 Certificate of weighing Mark 9/14 55 16 On-spot Test Report Mark 9/12 59 17 Receipt of Report for getting the examination certificate Mark 9/11 60 18 Original Complaint Mark 9/2 64 19 Original copy of receipt of depositing the muddamal 67 20 Original copy of the Extract of the Station Diary 70 21 Original copy of the Logbook of the vehicle Mark 9/19 74 22 Letter informing about the raid Mark 9/10 79 23 Yadi for sending muddamal examination certificate Mark 9/11 80 24 Yadi for sending weighing certificate Mark 9/13 81 25 Original fax message of the serious offence Mark 9/16 82 26 Letter of secret information Mark 9/4 83 27 Receipt of F.S.L. Mark 9/24 94 28 Analysis Report of the F.S.L. Mark 38/2 99 29 Analysis Report of the F.S.L. Mark 38/3 100 30 F.S.L. Letter Mark 38/1 101 31 Outward Letter Mark 9/23 105 32 Form-F Mark 9/17 106 33 Form-F Mark 9/18 107 34 Form-F Mark 9/19 108 35 Form-F Mark 9/20 109 36 Annexure-9 Mark 9/22 110 37 Annexure-9 Mark 9/25 111 38 Annexure-9 Mark 9/26 112 39 Annexure-9 Mark 9/27 113 40 Yadi for preparing Map Mark 9/28 114 41 Vehicle tracing Mark 9/29 115 42 Closing purshis 117 43 Original copy of the Inventory Annexure-A 126 44 Original copy of the Inventory Report 127 4. The learned Special Judge recorded the further statement of the respondent-accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating circumstances made against him in the evidence rendered by the prosecution and the respondent-accused denied the charges levelled against him by pleading innocence and stated that he has been falsely implicated in the alleged offence. The respondent-accused had not led any evidence in defense. Therefore, the learned Special Judge proceeded to convict and sentence the respondent–accused for the offences as aforesaid. 5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the quantum of sentence awarded by the trial court, the appellant-State has preferred the present appeal for enhancement of the sentence imposed upon the respondent-accused mainly on the grounds that the sentence awarded by the trial court is highly inadequate and disproportionate to the offence committed by the respondent-accused and the trial court has committed an error in taking a lenient view while imposing the lesser sentence. SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT-STATE. 6. Ms.Shruti Pathak, learned APP appearing for the appellant- State has submitted that the trial court has, without assigning any adequate and special reasons, awarded inadequate sentence. Ms.Pathak has submitted that, admittedly, the respondent-accused was found in conscious possession of large quantity of 409 grams of opium without any permit/license, for which the trial court ought to have imposed maximum punishment provided under the Act for the offence under Section 8(c) read with Section 17(b) of the NDPS Act, however, the trial court erred in taking a lenient view while imposing the sentence for the said offence. She has submitted that the trial court has not assigned any adequate and sufficient reasons. On the contrary, the reasons assigned by the trial court prima facie seems to be superficial and general in nature. 7. Learned APP Ms.Pathak has submitted that the law in this regard is well-settled that while awarding the punishment, the court should take into consideration the nature of the offence, the circumstances under which it was committed and the degree of deliberation shown by the offender. 8. Learned APP Ms.Pathak has further submitted that the measure of punishment should be proportionate to the gravity of the offence. 8. Learned APP Ms.Pathak has further submitted that the measure of punishment should be proportionate to the gravity of the offence. In the facts of the present case, the respondent-accused has been held guilty for the commission of offence under Sections 8(c) read with Section 17(b) of the NDPS Act, for which, the punishment is rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years and also liable to fine which may extend to Rs.1 lakh. However, the trial court imposed lesser sentence of rigorous imprisonment of three years for the offences under Section 8(c) read with Section 17(b) of the NDPS Act. In the facts of the present case, despite the overwhelming evidence against the respondent-accused, the trial court awarded the lesser sentence which, ultimately, will result into travesty of justice and spread a wrong message to the society. The trial court ought to have taken a deterrent view while imposing the sentence in such a serious offence. 9. Learned APP Ms.Pathak has lastly submitted that taking into consideration the aforesaid circumstances as well as the seriousness and gravamen of the offence committed by the respondent-accused, the appeal is required to be admitted and allowed, thereby the sentence awarded by the trial court may be enhanced to the maximum punishment for the offences with which the respondent-accused has been charged. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS : 10. Having heard learned APP Ms.Shruti Pathak appearing for the appellant-State and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, prima facie it appears that the trial court has convicted the present respondent-accused for the alleged offences under the NDPS Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years along with a fine of Rs.10,000=00. It prima facie appears that the appellant-State has filed the present appeal for enhancement of the sentence on a very limited ground. It is an admitted fact that after the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial court, the appellant-State has preferred the present appeal being Criminal Appeal No.2601 of 2024. It prima facie appears that the appellant-State has filed the present appeal for enhancement of the sentence on a very limited ground. It is an admitted fact that after the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial court, the appellant-State has preferred the present appeal being Criminal Appeal No.2601 of 2024. Admittedly, it appears from the bare perusal of the judgment of the trial court that, after taking into consideration the age of the respondent-accused as well as the fact that the respondent-accused hails from a lower strata of the society and is having an aged parents, wife and an unmarried daughter and also considering the fact that the respondent-accused was not having any past antecedents, the trial court imposed lesser sentence of rigorous imprisonment of three years for the offences under Section 8(c) read with Section 17(b) of the NDPS Act. The trial court has, in its judgment at para-37, assigned the reasons for awarding the punishment. 11. The punishment prescribed for the offence under Section 8(c) of the NDPS Act is provided under Section 17(b) of the NDPS Act, which is rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year and also be liable to pay fine of Rs.1 lakh. Section 17 of the NDPS Act reads thus : “17. 11. The punishment prescribed for the offence under Section 8(c) of the NDPS Act is provided under Section 17(b) of the NDPS Act, which is rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year and also be liable to pay fine of Rs.1 lakh. Section 17 of the NDPS Act reads thus : “17. Punishment for contravention in relation to prepared opium.—Whoever, in contravention of any provision of this Act or any rule or order made or condition of licence granted thereunder, manufactures, possesses, sells, purchases, transports, imports inter-State, exports inter-State or uses prepared opium shall be punishable,— (a) where the contravention involves small quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to 1 [one year], or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both; or (b) where the contravention 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; or (c) where the contravention 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.” (emphasis supplied) 12. On the overall appreciation and reanalysis of the entire evidence, prima facie, it appears that the trial court, after taking into consideration the seriousness of the offence, declined to grant the benefit of probation to the respondent-accused. However, considering the age and the family background of the respondent-accused as well as considering the fact that the respondent-accused was not having any past criminal antecedent and also taking into consideration the nature of the incident as well as the circumstances and the manner in which it was occurred, the trial court imposed lesser sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three years along with a fine of Rs.10,000=00, which cannot be said to be perverse or illegal since the trial court has exercised its judicial discretion to impose the lesser sentence, which, in my view, cannot be said to be perverse or illegal. Therefore, this Court does not find any infirmity in the order passed by the trial court, since, while exercising the judicial discretion, the trial court has recorded sufficient and adequate reasons. This Court is satisfied with the reasoning assigned by the trial court on the aspect of sentence and, therefore, no interference is required to be made with the discretion exercised by the trial court. It is settled position of law that the question of sentence is a matter of discretion and if sufficient reasons are recorded by the trial court, then the High Court should not interfere with the decision of the trial court on the issue of sentence. This Court deems it fit to refer to the principles, as laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Bed Raj vs. State of U.P., reported in AIR 1955 SC 778 , governing the exercise of power by the High Court while enhancing the sentence imposed by the trial court, which reads thus : “A question of a sentence is a matter of discretion and it is well settled that when discretion has been properly exercised along accepted judicial lines, an appellate court should not interfere to the detriment of an accused person except for very strong reasons which must be disclosed on the face of the judgment; see for example the observations in -'Dalip Singh v/s. State of Punjab', and 'Nar Sigh v/s. State of Uttar Pradesh'. In a matter of enhancement there should not be interference when the sentence passed imposes substantial punishment. Interference is only called for when it is manifestly inadequate. In our opinion, these principles have not been observed. It is impossible to hold in the circumstances described that the Sessions Judge did not impose a substantial sentence, and no adequate reason has been assigned by the learned High Court Judges for considering the sentence manifestly inadequate. In the circumstances, bearing all the considerations of this case in mind, we are of opinion that the appeal (which is limited to the question of sentence) should be allowed and that the sentence imposed by the High Court should be set aside and that of the Sessions Court restored.” 13. In the circumstances, bearing all the considerations of this case in mind, we are of opinion that the appeal (which is limited to the question of sentence) should be allowed and that the sentence imposed by the High Court should be set aside and that of the Sessions Court restored.” 13. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the findings recorded by the trial court while imposing the sentence do not suffer from any perversity or illegality. The findings recorded by the trial court are absolutely just and proper, and in recording the same, no illegality or infirmity has been committed by the trial court. Therefore, this Court does not find any ground warranting interference with the order of sentence passed by the trial court. 14. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, this Court is in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion and the resultant order of sentence passed by the trial court, therefore, no interference is warranted. 15. The appeal, therefore, fails and the same is hereby dismissed in limine. Records and proceedings be sent back to the concerned court.