JUDGMENT :

MANOJ KUMAR GARG, J.

1. The instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellants against the judgment dated 05.06.2015 passed by learned Special Judge, NDPS Act Cases, Jodhpur in Sessions Case No. 165/2010, by which the trial court convicted the present appellants for the offence under Section 8/18 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and sentenced him as under:

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 16.05.2010, SHO P.S. Bilara received a secret information regarding transportation of opium in a black Santro car. The police party reached the road and laid an ambush. At about 08:15 PM one Black colour Santro car coming from Bilara side was stopped in which two persons were sitting who were identified as Ramgopal and Mohanlal. Upon search in the presence of independent motbirs, six bags were recovered containing total 18 kg 400 gm opium for which the accused had no license or permit. The police seized the contraband and arrested the accused persons.

3. The police registered the FIR for offence under Section 8/18 NDPS Act and started investigation. After investigation, the police filed challan against the present appellants. The charges of the case were framed against the appellants. They denied the charges and claimed trial.

4. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined thirteen witnesses and various documents were also exhibited. Thereafter, statement of appellant under section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. One witness Jitendra Singh was examined as DW-1 on the defence side.

5. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 05.06.2015 convicted and sentenced the appellants for offence under Section 8/18 NDPS Act as mentioned earlier.

6. At the threshold, learned counsel for the appellants argued that he does not challenge the order of the conviction, however, he submitted that the appellants are behind the bars and have already served the total sentence of 11 years 04 months out of the total sentence of 15 years. So he prayed that a lenient view should be taken and the sentence awarded to the appellants should be reduced to that of already undergone by him. Learned counsel further submitted that towards the default of payment of the fine also, a very harsh punishment of two year R.I. has been imposed upon the appellants. While placing reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shahfjad Khan Maebub Khan Pathan vs. State of Gujarat, (2013) 1 SCC 570 and Balwinder Singh and Others vs. Assistant Commissioner, Custom and Central Excise, 2005 AIR SCW 3380, it was prayed that the quantum of sentence in lieu of default in payment of fine may also be reduced appropriately. No other ground was argued by the learned counsel for the appellant.

7. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that there is neither any occasion to interfere with the sentence awarded to the accused appellants nor any compassion or sympathy is called for in the said case.

8. I have heard the rival contentions of the parties and have carefully gone through the record.

9. In view of the limited prayer made on behalf of the appellant, this Court need not go into the merits of the case and the conviction recorded by the learned trial court is hereby upheld.

10. As far as the sentence is concerned, the learned trial court has awarded a total punishment of 15 years RI to each appellant and in default of payment of fine to undergo two years' RI.

11. In the case of Shahfijad Khan Mahebub Khan Pathan (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:

“(8) Coming to the question of sentence, it is not in dispute that the appellants were charged for possession of brown sugar