Judgment Virender Singh, J. 1. Appellant Vir Bhan son of Nebh Raj resident of Fatehabad, District Hissar was convicted by the learned Session Judge, Sirsa on 2.6.1995, under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short to be referred as the Act) and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1 lac and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. 2. The appellant had presented the present appeal through jail and thereafter Mr. Vikas Chatrath, Advocate was appointed as amicus curiae to argue the case of the appellant. The appellant is in custody for the last more than eight years as per certificate, Annexure A1. Earlier also, the present appeal was set down for final hearing, but somehow it could not be heard. 3. In short, the case of the prosecution is that on 10.5.1988 at about 6.00 P.M., Bhagwan Dass, Inspector, who was pasted in CIA Staff, Sirsa, was present on the bridge of Bhamboor Canal Minor in the area of Shamshabad Patti in connection with detection of crime. Some other police officials were also with him. Puran Singh, Chowkidar (since deceased) happened to meet the police party, and after some time, the present appellant was allegedly seen coming from the side of village Kelania. He was carrying a thaila on his left shoulder. On seeing the police party, he started walking briskly, but was apprehended on suspicion. An offer was given to him for searching his person in the presence of a Gazetted Officer, but he expressed his confidence in Bhagwan Dass, Inspector PW1 and told the latter that he could search his person. Consequently, the thaila carried by the appellant was searched from which a tin box was recovered and the said box was found to contain 1 Kg. and 500 grams of opium wrapped in a wax paper. A sample of 10 grams of opium was taken from the recovered contraband. The sample and the remainder were separately sealed. Certain other legal formalities were also done at the spot. On these allegations, a case was registered against the appellant. 4. The appellant was charged under Sections 17 and 18 of the Act and on a consideration of entire evidence the appellant was convicted under Section 18 of the Act and sentenced, as stated above. Certain other legal formalities were also done at the spot. On these allegations, a case was registered against the appellant. 4. The appellant was charged under Sections 17 and 18 of the Act and on a consideration of entire evidence the appellant was convicted under Section 18 of the Act and sentenced, as stated above. Hence this appeal. 5. Mr. Chatrath, at the very outset, has stated that he does not press the appeal on merits and requests for reduction of sentence. In support of his arguments, he has stated that the quantity allegedly recovered from the appellant does not fall under the commercial quantity as per the provisions of the Act as substituted by Act No. 9 of 2001 and the said provisions would also be applicable to the present appeal, although the alleged offence was committed prior to the amendment. In support of his contention he has relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in Ram Singh v. State of Haryana, 2002(3) RCC 425 : 2002(3) RCR(Crl.) 728 (DB). 6. He has also relied upon another judgment of this Court rendered in Criminal Appeal No. 1451-SB of 2001, "Babu Khan v. State of Punjab" in which the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1 lac. The said case also relates to the recovery of contraband allegedly made in June 1999, much prior to the amendment. In that case also, the sentence of ten years awarded to the appellant, was reduced to rigorous imprisonment for three years and sentence of fine was reduced to Rs. 3,000/- only from Rs. 1 lac. 7. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has not strongly opposed the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant on the point of reduction of sentence. 8. I have also seen the evidence minutely and find no infirmity in the impugned judgment of conviction. However, so far as the quantum of sentence is concerned, I am of the view that the interest of justice would be met if the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him. However, the sentence of fine is reduced from Rs. 1 lac to Rs. 5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the appellant will undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. Ordered accordingly. 9. However, the sentence of fine is reduced from Rs. 1 lac to Rs. 5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the appellant will undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. Ordered accordingly. 9. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed with the modification in the sentence, as indicated above. Appeal dismissed.