IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 16 OF 2007 ; Shivkumar Mishra, Major, Presently lodged at Central Jail, Aguada, Sinquerim, Goa. ... Appellant versus State of Goa, as represented by Officer-In-Charge, Margao Town P.S., Margao. ... Respondent Ms. Caroline Collasso, Advocate for the Appellant. Ms. Winnie Coutinho, Public Prosecutor for the Respondent. CORAM : N. A. BRITTO, J. DATE : 19TH AUGUST, 2008. ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Ms. Caroline Collasso, learned Counsel on behalf of the appellant. 2. The appeal is restricted to the quantum of sentence. The appellant who is an accused has been convicted and sentenced under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 to undergo R.I. for a period of three years and pay a fine of Rs.30,000/- in default to undergo S.I. for three months. 3. The accused was found on 9-12-2002 in possession of 1.61 kgs. of ganja which is variable quantity, 1 kg. having been declared as small quantity and 20 kgs., being declared as commercial quantity. When the said ganja was analyzed on 15-12-2004 by PW1/Mahesh Kaissare he found that the same was 1.31 kgs. i.e. the substance alone. The weight with jute bag and plastic carrying bag was 1.595 kgs. He has opined that the said substance was slightly in a moist condition and the learned Special Judge has also considered that the difference in weight from 1.610 kgs. to 1.595 kgs. could be because of evaporation of the moisture. 4. Learned Counsel on behalf of the accused submits that in case the moisture contents were excluded, the substance without moisture could also have been less than 1 kg., and, therefore small quantity for which punishment provided is imprisonment for a term which could extend to six months or with fine which may extend to Rs.10,000/- or with both. Learned Counsel also submits that the expression “ganja” does not include seeds and leaves when not accompanied by tops in terms of Section 2(i)(b) of the said Act and the expert PW1/Mahesh Kaissare has also not been able to specify what was the weight of the flowery parts alone or the leaves separately. Learned Counsel therefore submits that the accused has undergone two months and six days and therefore the said period be considered as substantive sentence. Learned Counsel also submits that in case the fine is not paid the same would be paid. 5. The element of moisture and on that count reduction of weight, appears to have taken care of by the learned N.D.P.S. Court in para 28 of the Judgment. There is nothing in the evidence of PW1/Mahesh Kaissare to suggest that there were any leaves which were not accompanied by the tops and being so the finding that the accused was found with 1.31 kgs. of ganja could not be faulted. Nevertheless, considering the punishment provided for small quantity and variable quantity i.e. term of imprisonment which could extend to six months and ten years, respectively, and, considering the weight of the substance found with the accused there is scope for slight reduction of sentence. At the same time, it is also not to be forgotten that the Apex Court, time and again, has reminded all Courts that persons convicted for offences relating to narcotics and psychotropic substances deserve exemplary punishment as they gravely damage the health and have adverse impact on social order. Considering the quantity involved which is little over 1 kg.(i.e. 1.31 kgs.) ends of justice would be met by imposing a sentence of one year R.I. In other words, the period of imprisonment imposed upon the accused shall be reduced from three years to one year, the fine remaining unaltered. The accused would be entitled to set off. 6. Hence, the appeal is partly allowed and the sentence imposed upon the accused is partly modified. The bail bonds of the accused are hereby cancelled. The accused to surrender to undergo the remaining term of sentence. N. A. BRITTO, J. RD