JUDGMENT

Aman Chaudhary, J.

Challenge in the present appeal is to the judgment and order dated 16.11.2015 passed by Special Court, Tarn Taran, vide which the appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act').

2. Succinctly, the facts of the prosecution case are that on 29.03.2012, Assistant Sub Inspector Avtar Singh along with police party were patrolling and when they reached Jandiala road, near the pound of village Mallian, they saw one Hindu gentleman coming on foot from the opposite side of village Mallian, who on seeing the police party threw one polythene envelope of black colour towards the side of pound and turned back. On the asking of the Investigating Officer the accused told him that it contained intoxicant injections and due to fear, he has thrown the same on the ground. Accused picked up the said polythene envelope from the ground and handed over the same to him. Before checking the said polythene envelope, efforts were made to join public witness but none was ready to join. On search of the polythene envelope 10 intoxicant injections without label were recovered, which were put in the same polythene envelope and converted into a sample parcel, which was sealed. The case property was taken into police possession. Ruqa was sent, on the basis of which, present FIR was registered. After completion of investigation, challan against the accused was filed. Upon which charge under Section 22 of NDPS Act was framed, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

3. The prosecution in order to prove its case, had examined as many as 4 PWs. Statement of the accused under Section 313 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE was recorded in which all the incriminating circumstances and evidence was put to him, which he denied and pleaded innocence.

4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the evidence brought on record, the trial Court came to the conclusion that prosecution had successfully proved its case in bringing home the guilt against the accused and convicted and sentenced him as noticed above in para no.1.

5. Hence, the present appeal.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant, at the very outset, submits that he does not wish to challenge the judgment of conviction and prays for reducing the sentence awarded to the appellant on account of the fact that he has undergone 9 months and 7 days out of the total sentence of 3 years; recovery effected from him was of non-commercial quantity of contraband; no criminal antecedents; a poor person; only bread earner of the family, having wife and children; facing the agony of protracted trial since 2012.

7. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the trial Court after appreciating the evidence led by the prosecution, has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant, therefore, prays for the dismissal of the present appeal.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

9. Though, the appellant has given up his challenge to the conviction and restricted his prayer only with regard to reduction of his sentence as undergone, in view of the mitigating circumstances mentioned above. However, this Court still deems it appropriate to examine the judgment of conviction. The trial Court had thoroughly examined the evidence and observed that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant. The recovery was effected from him by following proper procedure and there is nothing on record to suggest that the appellant was falsely implica