S. B. SAKRIKAR. J. ( 1 ) THE appellant I State has, directed this appeal for enhancement of the sentence against the judgment and order of sentence dated 29th Dec. , 1996 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. Indore in Criminal Case No, 3057/81 thereby convicting the respondents No. 2 and 3 for contravention of section 18 (a) and 17 (e) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (for short, the Ace) and sentencing them under each count for a fine of Rs. 5001 -, and also sentencing till rising of the Court in default of payment of fine further SI for four months under each count. The State has filed this appeal only on the point of inadequacy of the sentence under section 377 Cr. P. C. ( 2 ) THE case of the prosecution in brief is that on 4th February, 1981 in the evening at about 5. 00 P. M. the drug inspector Yogendra Pal Sahani in the presence of the witnesses inspected the shop of the respondents. During the inspection, it was found that some cloroquine tablets were recovered for which the respondents have no licence for the sale. It was also found that some medicines of physicians sample not for sale, were also recovered. Some unlawful medicines on which the name of manufacturer or batch number were not mentioned, were also recovered. The drug inspector in the presence of, the witnesses prepared the panchanama and seized the medicines. Complaint was filed by the drug inspector against the respondents in the court of CJM Indore for contravention of section 18 (a) and 17 (e) and rule No. 65 of the Act. Both the respondents were charged for the contravention of section 17 (e ). 18 (a) and Rule 65 of the Act, punishable under section 27-B of the Act. Both the respondents, in reply to the charge pleaded guilty and on admission of the respondents, the trial Court awarded the sentence against the respondents No. 2 and 3 as indicated above. Aggrieved, the State has filed this appeal against the impugned judgment of the trial Court. ( 3 ) I have heard Shri Abdul Salim learned PL for the State and Shri Panjawani learned counsel for the respondents. Aggrieved, the State has filed this appeal against the impugned judgment of the trial Court. ( 3 ) I have heard Shri Abdul Salim learned PL for the State and Shri Panjawani learned counsel for the respondents. ( 4 ) CONSIDERING the rival submissions of the counsel for the parties and the facts of the case, the only question arises for decision in this appeal is that whether the amended provisions of the Act shall apply to the instant case. ( 5 ) ON perusal of the record, it is found that the date of incident is 4-2-1981 when the provisions of section 27 of the old Act were in force. Section 27 was amended in the year 1983 by Act No. 68/82 effective from 1-2-1983. In the amended section 27 (B) of the Act minimum sentence for imprisonment for three years and in addition the fine is provided but in view of the facts at hand, as the date of incident is prior to the aforesaid amendment and also the trial commenced before the amended provisions were made applicable, as such amended provisions of section 27-B of the Act shall not be applied to the case at hand. Before amendment in Section 27-B of the Act, no minimum sentence was provided, therefore, the order of sentence as passed by the trial Court cannot be considered to be illegal or perverse and no interference is necessary in the order of sentence as passed by the trial Court against the respondents. ( 6 ) CONSEQUENTLY, this appeal has no merits or substance and the same is accordingly dismissed. The judgment and the order of sentence as passed by the trial Court are affirmed. Both the respondents No, - 2 and 3 are on bail, their bail bonds stand discharged. Appeal dismissed. .