PRASAD, J.

(1) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction dated 20.11.1998 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court under N.D.P.S. Act, Murshidabad in N.D.P.S. Case No. 23/97 by which the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 21 of the N.D.P.S. Act. By an order dated 21.11.98 the appellant was sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of ten years and also to pay fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, in default of payment of fine to suffer further Rigorous Imprisonment for two years.

(2) Being aggrieved by the orders of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.

(3) Prosecution version in a nutshell was that in pursuance of source information recorded in G.D. Entry No.758 dated 20.11.1997 at 21.05 hours and after sending R.T. message to C.I. of Police, Berhampur, a Gazetted Officer, the O.C., Lalgola Police Station (P.W.7) along with other Police Officers and force left for Village Dakshin-Sudarshanganj to work out the information. After arrival at Village Dakshin-Sudarshanganj, the Police Officer knocked at the door of the appellant who opened the door. Police Officer informed the appellant that it was suspected that he kept heroin in his house. On interrogation in presence of public witness and C.I of Police, Lalgola, the appellant confessed his guilt and brought out a small deep green coloured cloth bag containing two polythene packets of heroin weighing 125 grams each that is 250 grams in total which was kept concealed on the first floor of the staircase of the house of the appellant. Thereafter, in presence of C.I. of Police (P.W.8) and two witnesses viz. P.W. 3 and P.W.4, contraband articles along with cloth bags and packets were seized and sample of 3 grams from each of the two packets were drawn for chemical examination. The appellant was arrested on the allegation that he was possessing unlawfully heroin. He was taken to Lalgola Police Station where a crime was registered.

(4) Investigating Authority took up investigation. In course of investigation, the samples of contraband articles were sent for chemical examination. On chemical examination, the samples were found to be heroin. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet under Sections 21/29 of the N.D.P.S. Act was submitted against the appellant by (P.W.6) S.I., T.K. Dutta.

(5) In the trial Court, charge under Section 21 of the N.D.P.S. Act was framed against the appellant. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against him and claimed to be tried.

(6) In the trial Court as many as 8 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Apart from leading oral evidence, the prosecution also tendered and proved large number of exhibits which were marked as Exts. 1-2.

(7) Though the appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. yet there was no adduction of evidence by the appellant. From the trend of cross-examination of P.Ws. and suggestion thrown to the witnesses, the defence version was that the appellant had been falsely implicated and the alleged recovery of contraband article was not made from the staircase of his house.

(8) The learned trial Judge disbelieved the defence version. The learned trial Judge after considering the oral and documentary evidence and hearing the learned Counsel for the parties passed orders of conviction and sentences against the appellant as indicated above.

(9) No argument was advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant before this Court challenging the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned trial Court. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant at the hearing of the appeal before this Court confined his argument only towards the quantum of sentence, in default of payment of fine awarded by the learned trial Court.

(10) We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties on the quantum of sentence, in default of payment of fine.

(11) Learned Counsel for th