completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Sessions Judge, Raigarh. Learned Additional Sessions Judge received the case on transfer for trial. . ln order to prove the guilt of the appellant, the prosecution has examined, as many as three witnesses. The accused was examined under Section 313 of the»Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him, pleaded innocence and false implication. . After affording opportunity of hearing to the parties, learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted & sentenced the appellant as aforementioned. . i have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the judgment and record of the trial Court. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that in the present case the prosecution has not followed the procedure prescribed for! investigation of special case and prejudice has been caused to the accused/appellant. EvidenCe of Abhalal (PW-1), Sitaram (PW-2) & Investigating Officer S.K. Tigga (PW-3) are self-contradictory and create suspicion relating to possession and seizure of the contraband article. 8. O‘n‘ the’\other hand, learned State counsel opposedthe appeal and submitted that the investigating agency has seized the contraband article in public place in terms of Section 43 of the Act and it has followed the procedure prescribed. Evidence of the prosecution witnesses are sufficient‘for drawing inference that the appellant was in possession of ‘the contraband article Ganja at the relevant time. 9. In order to appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, i have examined the evidence adduced on behalf of the parties. 10.ln the present case, as per the evidence of SK. Tigga (PW-), the appellant was carrying Ganja in his cycle, he chased the appellant and caught hold of him in presence of two witnesses. The appellant was carrying one bag invhis cycle containing 2 kgs. of Ganja which w seized vide EX.P-1. Dehati nalsi was recorded on the spot vide Ex.P-2. " Numbered F.l.R. was recorded vide EXP-3. The article ‘was sent fr” chemical examination vide Ex.P-4 and same was found to be Ganja vid. Ex.P-5. Abhalal (PW—1) & Sitaram (PW-2) have substaially corroborated the evidence of S.K. Tigga (PW-3). Defence has cros- examined these witnesses at length and in their cross—examinatio, X 3 as o e nt s n Abhalal (PW—1) & Sitaram (PW-2) have specificaHy deposed that the ‘ contraband article was seized on the spot and thereafter the police took the appetlant along with the article to the Police Station where the memo was prepared, though it has been denied by the investigating Officer S.K. Tigga (PW-3) who has specifically deposed that he has prepared the seizuretmemo on the spot. 11.in thepresent case, the contraband article has been seized on the spot i.e. in public place in terms of Section 43 of the Act. Independent panch witnesses have not denied the factum of seizure on the spot, they have only deposed about preparation of seizure memo which does not effect the credibility of S.K. Tigga (PW-3) and factum of seizure of the contraband article Ganja on the spot. 1 2.After appreciating the evidence available on record, learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted the appellant under Section 8 (c) read with Section 20 (b) (i) of the Act and sentenced him in the aforesaid manner. Conviction of the appellant is based on legal and clinching evidence sustainable under the law. 13.The appellant was in possession of 2 kgs. of Ganja in the year 1993. He was in custody from 19—2—93 to 5-5—93 for about two months 14 days and after conviction vide judgment dated 9-9-93 tiil his release by this Court i.e. till 3-1 1-93, thereby he was again in custody for about one month 24 days. Over all, the appellant was in custody for four months 6 days. After lapse of 17 years again sending the appellant to jail for the remaining period of sentence imposed upon him i.e. one month 24 days will not serve any purpose. 14.Consequeptly, considering the period of detention of the appellant and pendency of trial & appeal, the appeal is partly allowed. Conviction of the appellant under Section 8 (c) read with Section 20 (b) (i) of the Act is hereby maintained. instead of R.l. for six months & fine'of Rs.1,000/-, the appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone by him i.e. the custodial period of four months 6 days and fine of Rs.3,000/—. The appellant-had already paid Rs.1,000/-, he shall pay thesremaining fine amount of Rs.2,000/- within two months from today failing which he shall further undergo R.l. for six months. b l Sd/— ’7 / T. P. Sharma I) Judge Soma .