JUDGMENT

Aman Chaudhary, J.

The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 03.02.2016 passed by learned Special Court, Amritsar, whereby the appellant had been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous impris-onment for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.30,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for six months, for the offence punishable under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short 'the Act').

2. Succinctly, the facts of the case are that on 02.04.2014, while ASI Harjit Singh and other police officials on patrolling duty were present in the area of Kathu Nangal Mann village, they on reaching near bridge Nakhash, saw a person coming towards them, carrying one polythene bag in his right hand. On seeing the police party, he threw the bag and tried to turn back towards the village but on suspicion of carrying some narcotic substance, he was apprehended by the said police officials. Before conducting the search, the Investigating Officer tried to join a public witness but nobody agreed. The person, who was apprehended disclosed his name as "Dheera". After apprising him of his right to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted officer, the accused reposed confidence in the Investigation Officer. On search of the plastic bag, intoxicant powder was recovered, out of which two separate samples 10 grams each were prepared and the remaining 90 grams was converted into a parcel. The said sample parcels were sealed with seal impression 'HS' and thereafter, the seal was handed over to HC Ajit Singh.

3. After completing the investigation, final report under Section 173 CrPC was presented in the Court, upon which the accused-appellant was charged under Section 18 of the Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. To bring home guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined as many as 5 prosecution witnesses. On closure of prosecution evidence, when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused while denying all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence against him pleaded innocence and alleged false implication. In defence, no witness was examined.

5. The special Court thoroughly examined the evidence and while observing that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, convicted and sentenced the appellant as noticed above.

6. Hence, the present appeal.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant, at the outset, submits that he does not wish to challenge the judgment of the conviction, however, prays that the sentence of the appellant may be reduced to the period of one year five months and two days already undergone, he is a rickshaw puller, a sole bread earner, having aged mother, wife and two children, apart from that, the recovery effected was of non-commercial and during bail, he did not commit any offence. He relies on State of Haryana v. Joginder Ram , 2015 (6) RCR (Cri) 97 , Mukesh Kumar v. State of MP. (Now Chhattisgarh) , 2015 (1) RCR (Cri) 251 and Tarsem Singh v. State of Punjab , 2017(2) RCR (Cri) 109.

8. Learned State counsel opposes the appeal on the ground that the trial Court after appreciating every aspect of the matter has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant, therefore, he prays for the dismissal of the present appeal.

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

10. The appellant has given up challenge to the conviction and has prayed for reduction of his sentence as having been undergone. Still having perused the judgment of the trial Court, the evidence was minutely examined therein and it was rightly observed that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyon