JUDGMENT Harjit Singh Bedi, J. - This appeal has been filed by Jagtar Singh, who stands convicted and sentenced vide judgment and order dated October 06, 1995 for an offence punishable under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as amended. The prosecution story is as under :- 2. On May 11, 1994, S.I. Shamsher Singh then posted as S.H.O. Police Station, Sadar Barnala alongwith ASI Teja Singh, ASI Jagdeep Singh, Constable Dhanna Singh and others was on patrol in the area of village Thikriwala, when they spotted the accused coming from the opposite direction carrying a jhola in his right hand. On seeing the police party, the accused turned away which created a suspicion and he was accordingly apprehended and told that the jhola had to be searched and that if he so wished, it could be done before a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. The accused stated that he wished to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer. The S.H.O. then sent a wireless message on which Balwinder Singh, D.S.P. Barnala reached the spot. A subsequent search of the jhola led to the recovery of opium. Two samples of 10 grams each were separated and sealed and sent for analysis, whereas the remaining quantity weighing 1 kg. 980 grams was sealed and deposited in the malkhana. A F.I.R. was also registered and the necessary investigation/enquiry was made and on its completion, the accused was charged for having committed an offence punishable under Section 18 of the Act and as he pleaded not guilty, he was brought to trial. 3. In order to substantiate its allegations, the prosecution examined S.I. Shamsher Singh-PW1, ASI Teja Singh-PW2 and HC Nazir Mohd.-PW3. The report of the Chemical Examiner pertaining to the two samples that had been sent for analysis was also produced in evidence. D.S.P. Sh. Balwinder Singh could not be examined as he had died in the meantime. 4. The prosecution case was then put to the accused. In his statement recorded under section 313 Criminal Procedure Code he denied the allegations of the prosecution and pleaded that he had been falsely implicated in this case. He examined two witnesses in defence : Nachhattar Singh and his sister Manjit Kaur. 4. The prosecution case was then put to the accused. In his statement recorded under section 313 Criminal Procedure Code he denied the allegations of the prosecution and pleaded that he had been falsely implicated in this case. He examined two witnesses in defence : Nachhattar Singh and his sister Manjit Kaur. The trial Court relying upon the aforesaid evidence, convicted the accused for the offence under Section 18 of the Act and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for ten years and also to pay a fine of Rs. one lac and in default of payment thereof, to further undergo R.I. for 2-1/2 years vide its judgment and order dated October 06, 1995. 5. This case has been on the list of this Bench since September, 2003. The counsel for the accused-appellant has not turned up even today. I have, accordingly, dealt with this matter as it would not be in the interest of justice to adjourn it any further. 6. It appears from the judgment of the trial Court that the primary argument advanced before it was that no independent witness had been associated at the time of search and seizure and as such, reliance exclusively on the evidence of police witnesses was not justified. The trial Court has, however, observed that as the meeting between the police party and the accused was a chance encounter, there was no time to secure the presence of an independent witness. This appears to be the correct position, I am, thus, of the opinion that no fault can be found with the conviction of the accused. It has, however, been fairly pointed out by Mr. Gill, the learned State Counsel that in view of the amendments made to the Act, some benefits had been conferred on the accused who had been prosecuted thereunder. He has pointed out that as per Serial No. 92 of Notification No. S.O. 1055-(E), dated October 19, 2001, 25 grams of opium was to be categorised as a small quantity and 2.5 kg or in excess thereof a commercial quantity and as the 2 kg. of opium recovered between (from ?) the accused would fall midway between the two. Some reduction in the sentence could be made in favour of the accused. of opium recovered between (from ?) the accused would fall midway between the two. Some reduction in the sentence could be made in favour of the accused. He has further pointed out that in view of the above amendment, the offence was now punishable with imprisonment of upto ten years and a fine of up to Rs. one lac. He has also pointed out that a Division Bench of this Court in Ran Singh v. The State of Haryana, Criminal Appeal No. 398-DB of 1988 decided on July 31, 2002 has held that the above amendments would be applicable to pending appeals as well. 7. In view of what has been pointed out by Mr. Gill, I am of the opinion that some mitigation in the sentence is called for on the ground that the quantity recovered from the accused was below the commercial quantity and the matter has been pending in one Court or the other since long. 8. This appeal is, accordingly, dismissed but the sentence imposed on the accused-appellant is reduced from 10 years R.I. to 5 years R.I. and the fine from Rs. 1,00,000/- to Rs. 10,000/-. In case of default in payment of fine, the accused shall further undergo R.I. for six months. A copy of this judgment be sent to the accused-appellant free of costs under registered cover. Appeal dismissed.