The quantity of contraband and the appellant's previous imprisonment can be considered in reducing the substantive sentence and fine under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.

H.R. Panwar, J.-By the instant criminal appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "the Code"), accused-appellant has challenged the Judgment and order dated 112.2004 passed by the Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Court, Sirohi (for short, "the trial Court" hereinafter), by which the trial Court convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 8/20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, "the Act") and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs. 10,000/-and in default of payment of fine further to undergo two months rigorous imprisonment.

2. Briefly recapitulated, the facts of the case are that on 20.02.2003, at about 2:20 p.m., PW. 1 Dewaram Constable alongwith PW. 4 Man Singh, Constable, was on patrolling duty at Railway Station, Abu Road. On checking, they found the appellant and co-accused Muniraj alias Balak Das carrying Ganja in a bag and container (Peepa) respectively. The matter was immediately reported to the higher authority and PW. 16 Sahi Ram, Sub-Inspector was directed to reach Abu Road for investigating the matter. On a search being made, 1.100 kg of Ganja was recovered from the possession of appellant. After completion of investigation, the police filed challan against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 8/20 of the Act. The trial Court, after hearing the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant for the aforesaid offence.

3. I have heard learned Counsel for the appellant and the Public Prosecutor for the State. Perused the impugned Judgment and order as also the record of the case.

4. At the very out-set, learned Counsel for the appellant has given up his challenge to the conviction and confined his arguments on the question of sentence. His contention is that the contraband Ganja recovered from the accused-appellant is 1.100 kg, which is slightly higher than the small quantity but much less than the commercial quantity. His further contention is that no previous conviction stands at the credit of the appellant and he has already undergone the imprisonment for two years and 2 ½ months and as such the substantive sentence awarded by the trial Court may be reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him.

5. I have carefully gone through the impugned Judgment and order as also the record of the case. From the evidence of constables PW. 1 Devaram and PW. 4 Man Singh, it is established that they were on patrolling duty at Railway Station, Abu Road. On seeing these police personnel, the appellant and co-accused tried to move from the railway coach which created a suspicion and on checking, contraband Ganja weighing 1.100 kg was found in possession of the appellant. On this, PW. 1 Devaram went to inform the matter to G.R.P. Station and PW. 4 Man Singh was left there to keep a watch on the accused and the contraband article. PW. 5 Jagdish Singh, H.C., was the Incharge of the Police Station on that day, to whom PW. 1 Devaram gave the information. PW. 2 Kishan Lal was running a tea-stall at railway station, Abu Road, which took personal search of PW. 16 Sahi Ram, the investigating officer. PW. 16 Sahi Ram, Sub-Inspector, conducted the search of the appellant, recovered the contraband Ganja, arrested the accused and after investigation, filed challan against the appellant. The other witnesses are police personnel who have given evidence regarding depositing the seized contraband articles in the Malkhana and thereafter sending the same to the State Forensic Science Laboratory. Their evidence is further to the effect that right from the date of seizure and sealing the contraband article, their seals remained intact throughout. The evidence of independent Motbir witnesses corroborates the prosecution case. Thus, in view of the overwhelming evidence on record, learned Counsel for the appellant has rightly given up the challenge