JUDGMENT : 1. Instant revision petition has been filed under Section 397 read with 401 Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 02.08.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.3, Bhilwara in Criminal Appeal No. 242/2021 whereby, while partly allowing the appeal and upholding the conviction of petitioner under Section 8/21 of N.D.P.S Act, the sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment was reduced to three months rigorous imprisonment, however, the amount of fine was enhanced from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.5,000/- with default stipulation. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 11.08.2017, S.H.O. P.S. Bheemgunj, District Bhilwara while on duty, saw a person coming from the link road who ran upon seeing the police. The police chased and apprehended the accused who disclosed his name to be Sonu @ Arjun and upon search, he was carrying one plastic pouch weighing 4.5 gms smack powder for which the accused had no license or permit. The police seized the contraband and arrested the accused. 3. The police registered the FIR for offence under Section 8/21 NDPS Act and started investigation. After investigation, the police filed challan against the present petitioner for offence under Section 8/21 of NDPS Act. Thereafter, the charges of the case were framed against the petitioner. He denied the charges and claimed trial. 4. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined various witnesses and documents were also exhibited. Thereafter, statement of appellant under section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded but no witness was examined on defence side. 5. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 22.09.2021 convicted and sentenced the petitioner for offence under Section 8/21 NDPS Act as mentioned earlier. 6. Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 22.09.2021, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.2, Bhilwara, an appeal was preferred before the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.3, Bhilwara whereby, the conviction and sentence of the petitioner-convict under Sections 8/21 awarded by the learned trial court was upheld, however, the sentence of the petitioner was reduced from six months rigorous imprisonment to three months rigorous imprisonment with enhancement of fine from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.5,000/-. 7. 7. At the threshold, learned counsel for the petitioner does not challenge the finding of conviction but it is submitted that 4 gms smack being very small quantity, recovered from the petitioner and since the occurrence relates back to year 2017 and the appellant has already served the sentence of about 14 days in custody out of three months rigorous imprisonment, therefore, it is prayed that the substantive sentence awarded to the petitioner, may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 8. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor argued that both the Courts below concurrently held and confirmed the conviction and as such, it does not warrant any interference by this Court. The learned PP submitted that there is neither any occasion to interfere with the sentence awarded to the accused appellant nor any compassion or sympathy is called for in the said case. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered the rival submissions so also perused the record. 10. From the evidence on record so also finding arrived by the learned trial court, it appears that the learned courts have convicted the accused petitioner for offence under Section 8/21 of NDPS Act on the basis of statement of the witnesses and evidence on record. The courts below came to the conclusion by way of detailed and speaking order that the prosecution has proved the charges against the accused petitioner for offence mentioned above. So far as reduction of sentence of imprisonment awarded to the accused-petitioner is concerned, it is not disputed that the petitioner has remained behind the bars for about 14 days and has also suffered the agony and trauma of protracted trial. Since the petitioner has remained behind the bars for sufficient time so also undergone mental as well as physical agony of protracted trial, leniency can be shown to some extent. 11. Thus, looking to the over-all circumstances and the fact that the petitioner has remained behind the bars for considerable time, it will be just and proper if the sentence awarded by the trial court for offence under Section 8/21 NDPS Act is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 11. Thus, looking to the over-all circumstances and the fact that the petitioner has remained behind the bars for considerable time, it will be just and proper if the sentence awarded by the trial court for offence under Section 8/21 NDPS Act is reduced to the period already undergone by him. Accordingly, the conviction of the petitioner as recorded by the learned trial court for the offence under Section 8/21 NDPS Act, is hereby maintained and the sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him while maintaining the amount of fine. Petitioner is on bail. Two month’s time is granted to the petitioner to deposit the fine before the trial court, if not already deposited, failing which he shall undergo the default sentence of one month RI. Upon deposition of fine, his bail bonds shall stand discharged. 12. The revision petition stands disposed of. The record of the trial court be sent back forthwith.