JUDGMENT Virender Singh, J. - Ram Bahadur, the appellant-herein stands convicted under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short to be referred as the Act) and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. one lac, in default of payment of which to further undergo RI for one year. 2. I need not enter into detailed discussion so far as the facts are concerned as the learned counsel for the appellant has not assailed the impugned judgment on merits and has prayed for reduction of sentence only. 3. One kilogram of opium was allegedly recovered from the possession of the appellant by the police officials on 26.9.1989. After completion of investigation the appellant was challaned to face trial. He was charged under Section 18 of the Act and after examining the entire evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentence him as indicated above. Hence this appeal. 4. I have heard Mr. S.S. Rana, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. B.K. Mann, learned Senior Deputy Advocate General for the State of Punjab. 5. Though the impugned judgment of conviction has not been assailed by Mr. Rana, yet I have myself minutely perused the entire evidence on record and am of the view that the appellant has been rightly convicted of the charge framed against him. His conviction under section 18 of the Act is affirmed. 6. So far as quantum of sentence is concerned, concededly the recovery is one kilogram of opium. According to the amended provisions of the Act as substituted by Act No. 9 of 2001, lesser sentenced can be imposed if the contraband does not fall under the head "commercial quantity" and in the light of the decision of this Court in Ran Singh v. State of Haryana, 2002(3) RCC 425 the amended provisions are also applicable to the pending appeals in which the offence was committed prior to the amendment. Thus, the appellant deserves reduction in the quantum of sentence. In my considered view, the ends of justice would adequately be met if the sentence awarded by the trial Court is reduced to the period already undergone i.e. 3 years and 7 months and the sentence of fine is reduced from Rs. one lac to Rs. Thus, the appellant deserves reduction in the quantum of sentence. In my considered view, the ends of justice would adequately be met if the sentence awarded by the trial Court is reduced to the period already undergone i.e. 3 years and 7 months and the sentence of fine is reduced from Rs. one lac to Rs. 5000/-, in default of payment of which he shall have to undergo further RI for there months. It is ordered accordingly. 7. With the modification in quantum of sentence as indicated above, the appeal stands dismissed. Appeal dismissed.