VIJAY LAKSHMI,J. - (1.) This criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 22.11.2006 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No.5, Kanpur Nagar in ST No.308 of 2002 whereby convicting and sentencing the accused appellant Aquil Ahmad and one Atauddin under Section 21(c) of the NDPS Act with rigorous imprisonment for 20 years and a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- imposed on each. In default of payment of fine the convicts were directed to undergo further imprisonment of one year. The prosecution case, in brief, is that two accused persons named Atauddin and Aquil Ahmad (the present applicant) were caught by the police team headed by Sri Kamlesh Kumar Dixit, Circle Officer Anwarganj, and Tajendra Singh, S.H.O., P.S. Anwarganj, at 2.00 p.m. on 23.2.2002, on the information given by an informer, while they were sitting near 'Pakad' tree at the left side pavement of road, opposite Chacha Nehru Hospital, Mohalla Cooperganj, Kanpur. The accused persons were told that there is an information that they are possessing unauthorized smack in their bags. They were apprised of their right of being searched before any gazetted officer or Magistrate by the Circle Officer himself, but they consented to be searched by the Circle Officer. On search, one kg smack kept in pink and blue coloured polythene bags together inside a blue raxine bag hanging on the shoulder of the appellant and Rs.120/- from the pocket of his trouser were recovered. At the same time 3 Kg. of smack was recovered from the bag, which co-accused Atauddin was carrying. As both the accused persons could not show any licence for possession of the aforesaid smack, they were taken into custody. 100-100 gm smack was separated as samples from smack recovered from each accused and the same was kept and sealed in separate boxes. Sample seal was also prepared. Remaining recovered smack together with recovered Iron Beam Balance, Iron weights and currency notes were kept in the same bags from which those were recovered and were sealed in separate clothes. Seizure memo (Ext.Ka.1) was prepared on the spot by Head Constable Premanand Sharma on the dictation of C.O. Anwarganj, Sri Kamlesh Kumar Dixit and the same was read over to and got signed by all companion police men. The copies of seizure memo were handed over to the accused persons separately and their signatures were also obtained on the seizure memo. The trial court framed charges against the accused appellant under Section 21(c) of the NDPS Act. The accused appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined C.O. Sri Kamlesh Dixit as PW-1, S.H.O. Sri Tajendra Singh as PW-2, Sri Ram Vilas Pal as PW-3, Constable Satish Katiyar as PW-4, Sri Mahesh Narayan Tiwari as PW-5, Sri Hari Shankar Shukla as PW-6 and S.I. Sri Suresh Kumar Singh as PW-7. The learned trial court after perusing and analyzing the evidence on record and hearing the counsel for both the parties convicted and sentenced the accused appellant as hereinbefore mentioned in the beginning of the judgment. Hence, this appeal. Heard Sri Prashant Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that he does not want to argue this appeal on merit instead he intends to confine his argument only on the point of quantum of punishment. With regard to quantum of sentence awarded by the trial court, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned trial court, while awarding the sentence of 20 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,00,000/- to the accused appellant, has not considered the provisions of Section 32-B of the NDPS Act. Learned counsel has contended that there is nothing on record to show that the case of the appellant lies in either of the clauses from (a) to (f) of Section 32-B of the NDPS Act. He has further contended that there is also nothing on record to show that the accused appellant is a previous convict. However, only on the basis of quality and quantity of the contraband recovered from the possession of the accused appellant, he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment over and above the minimum sentence of imprisonment of 10 years as provided under Section 21(c) of the NDPS Act without assigning any reason for such punishment, which is too severe and harsh. Learned counsel has prayed that the appellant being a very poor person with huge family responsibilities may be released on the basis of the imprisonment already undergone by him. On the other hand, learned AGA for the State has submitted that 1 kg smack, which is the huge quantity has been recovered from the possession of the accused appellant. So the act of the accused appellant is against the main stream of the society and is against the interest of the Nation. Hence, there is no ground to reduce the sentence of the accused appellant awarded to him by the trial court. I have considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for both the parties. Section 32-B of the NDPS Act reads as under:- "32B. Factors to be taken into account for imposing higher than the minimum punishment- Where a minimum term of imprisonment or amount of fine is prescribed for any offence committed under this Act, the court may, in addition to such factors as it may deem fit, take into account the following factors for imposing a punishment higher than the minimum term of imprisonment or amount of fine, namely:- (a) The use or threat of use of violence or arms by the offender; (b) The fact that the offender holds a public office and that he has taken advantage of that office in committing the offence; (c) The fact that the minors are affected by the offence or the minors are used for the commission of an offence; (d) The fact that the offence is committed in an educational institution or social service facility or in the immediate vicinity of such institution or faculty or in other place to which school children and students resort for educational, sports and social activities; (e) The fact that the offender belongs to organised international or any other criminal group which is involved in the commission of the offence; and (f) the fact that the offender is involved in other illegal activities facilitated by commission of the offence." The above Section 32-B of the NDPS Act has been added and made effective from 2.10.2001. In this case the incident took place on 23.2.2002 and the impugned judgment was pronounced by the trial court on 22.11.2006. So Section 32-B of the NDPS Act is fully applicable. The trial court has awarded the sentence of 20 years' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,00,000/- to the accused appellant under Section 21(c) of the NDPS Act mainly on the ground of quality and quantity of the contraband recovered from his possession. There is nothing on record to show that the accused appellant had committed any act which may lie under any of the clauses of Section 32-B of the NDPS Act hereinbefore mentioned. But that does not mean that the Court cannot award the sentence more than the minimum sentence in the absence of any of the conditions mentioned in clauses (a) to (f) because these conditions are in addition to the factors as the Court may deem fit in awarding higher punishment over and above the minimum punishment provided under the provisions of Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act. However, considering the facts that there is nothing on record to show that the accused appellant has any previous criminal history and as per the statement of appellant recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. he is a poor person earning his livelihood by doing labour work and the trial court in para 53 of the impugned judgment has itself mentioned that accused are poor persons having family responsibilities and they have no criminal incident, moreover, the appeal preferred by co-accused Atauddin from whose possession 3 Kgs of smack was recovered numbering Criminal Appeal No. 376 of 2007 has been partly allowed vide order dated 19.2.2016 reducing his sentence to already undergone, the present appellant is also entitled to the same treatment. The accused appellant is in jail since the very beginning i.e. 23.2.2002, thus he has already suffered incarceration of about 15 years in jail. Being a very poor person he is unable to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as fine. Learned AGA has fairly conceded the aforementioned facts. Thus, regard being had to all the facts and circumstances of the case, I think that reduction of sentence of 20 years' rigorous imprisonment awarded to the appellant to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him and relying on the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 1, Shanti Lal Vs. State of M.P., the reduction of sentence of imprisonment of one year in default of payment of fine to 6 months, would meet the ends of justice. In view of the above, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellant Aquil Ahmad under Section 21(c) is maintained but the sentence of 20 years' rigorous imprisonment awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him. The fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- imposed on him is maintained. But in default of payment of fine, additional period of sentence of one year imprisonment is reduced to 6 months' imprisonment. Accused appellant Aquil Ahmad is in jail. Since he has already served out the sentence of imprisonment awarded to him, he shall be set at liberty forthwith on payment of fine of Rs.1,00,000/- as per rules. In case he fails to pay the awarded amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, he will have to undergo further 6 months' imprisonment. The case property relating to this case shall be disposed of in accordance with law. Lower court record be sent to the court concerned along with the copy of this judgment for further compliance. Certified copy of this judgment be supplied to the counsel for the accused appellant without any delay. ;