M. S. SHAH, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 1. 7. 1998 passed by the learned Additional City Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad, convicting the appellant of the offence punishable under Section 21 read with Section 8 (c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "the NDPS Act" or "the Act") sentencing him to ten years RI with a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, in default RI for one year. ( 2 ) THE appellant was charged with the aforesaid offence on the basis that on 4. 8. 1997 at about 6. 30 PM the appellant was found to be in possession of 3100 ml. grms. (i. e. 3. 100 grms.) of brown sugar near his house in Mahendi Kuva Lakhaji Kunwarjis Chawl in Shahpur area of Ahmedabad, without any pass, permit or license. ( 3 ) THE prosecution case was that Police Inspector Mr NK Chudasama had received, at about 3. 00 PM on 4. 8. 1997, information that the appellant was engaged in the business of selling narcotic drugs on the otta of his own house at the aforesaid chawl. The Police Inspector made an entry to that effect in the station diary and conveyed the information to his superior officer. Two panchas were called at 3. 30 PM and a preliminary panchnama was made. The police party and the panchas went near the house of the appellant and searched the person of the accused after informing him that he could have the search carried in presence of a gazetted officer or a Magistrate, to which the appellant expressed his willingness to be searched by PI Mr Chudasama. On such a search, 28 small packets containing powder were found from the right side pocket of the appellants trousers. Upon weighing the total quantity of the powder contained in those small 28 packets, it weighed 3100 ml. grms (i. e. 3. 100 grms) nett. The weight of the 28 small packets including the powder was 3800 ml. grms. (i. e. 3. 800 grms. ). The powder seized from the appellant was sent for the Forensic Science Laboratory report and it was found to be containing Morphine, Diacetylmorphine (Heroin), 6-Mono Acetyle Morphine, Codeine, Acetyl Codeine, Papaverine, Thienyl and the nett weight was found to be 3. 100 grms. grms. (i. e. 3. 800 grms. ). The powder seized from the appellant was sent for the Forensic Science Laboratory report and it was found to be containing Morphine, Diacetylmorphine (Heroin), 6-Mono Acetyle Morphine, Codeine, Acetyl Codeine, Papaverine, Thienyl and the nett weight was found to be 3. 100 grms. Alongwith those small packets of powder, the police also seized a pipe for smoking brown sugar, one cigarette packet of Cavander cigarettes containing one cigarette. The said articles were also seized and produced as muddamal articles. After the aforesaid search of the person of the appellant, the police also carried out the search of the appellants residence containing one room admeasuring 10 ft. x 10 ft. The said search did not yield any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance, but the ration card was found which contained his name and the names of his family members. The panchnama was drawn and the accused was arrested on the same day i. e. on 4. 8. 1997. During the course of interrogation, the appellant herein revealed that he had purchased the materials seized from him from one Husein Miya Riaz Miya, who was also arrested and remanded to judicial custody. After completing the investigation, the police submitted the chargesheet before the Court against both the accused persons. However, at the time of framing the charge, accused No. 2 submitted application dated 2. 12. 1997 for discharge and the learned Additional City Sessions Judge by order dated 9. 12. 1997 granted the said application on the ground that since there was no material recovered from accused No. 2, the charge could not be framed merely on the basis of a statement of the co-accused, in view of the provisions of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. As far as accused No. 1 (appellant herein) is concerned, the charge was framed against him and he pleased not guilty. ( 4 ) THE prosecution examined PW 1 Natvarsinh Pratapsinh (Exh. 17) and PW 2 Jasubhai Kalaji (Exh. 23) in respect of the panchnama (Exh. 18 ). Both the panch witnesses identified their signatures on the panchnama, but turned hostile in respect of the incident of seizure of the contraband material from the person of accused No. 1, the present appellant. The prosecution examined the following police officers :-4. 1 pw 3 Mr NK Chudasama, Police Inspector (Exh. 23) in respect of the panchnama (Exh. 18 ). Both the panch witnesses identified their signatures on the panchnama, but turned hostile in respect of the incident of seizure of the contraband material from the person of accused No. 1, the present appellant. The prosecution examined the following police officers :-4. 1 pw 3 Mr NK Chudasama, Police Inspector (Exh. 24) who had received the information in afternoon of 4. 8. 1997 that accused No. 1 was doing the business of selling narcotic drugs being psychotropic substance on the otta of his own house in Mahendi Kuva Lakhaji Kunwarjis Chawl at Shahpur. He reduced the said information into writing at Entry No. 7 in the station diary at the DCB Police Station (Pg. 49) and signed the same. The said entry was exhibited as Exh. 25. Thereafter he submitted the report conveying the above information to the Assistant Police Commissioner by writing Exh. 26. He deposed about calling the panchas, mentioning the preliminary panchnama between 3. 30 and 3. 40 and taking the police party and the panchas to the above mentioned residence of accused where the informant identified the appellant and cordoned the appellant who disclosed his name as Dilip Chimanlal Shikari, aged about 38 years, residing at the above place. The PI informed the appellant that he had come to carry out the search on the basis of the aforesaid information received about the appellant-accused and also informed the appellant that he (appellant) could have the search carried out in presence of a gazetted officer or any Executive Magistrate, to which offer, the appellant declined and, therefore, the person of the appellant was searched when 28 small packets of light yellow powder were found. It was prima facie found to be brown sugar. The total quantity of the material recovered from the appellant was 3800 ml. grms. and the nett weight of the powder was 3100 ml. grms. (i. e. 3. 100 grms. ). The powder found from all the 28 packets was mixed and it was put in a brown paper and was sealed. The total quantity of the material recovered from the appellant was 3800 ml. grms. and the nett weight of the powder was 3100 ml. grms. (i. e. 3. 100 grms. ). The powder found from all the 28 packets was mixed and it was put in a brown paper and was sealed. The PI further deposed that while the above material was found from the right side pocket of the appellants trousers worn by him, from the left side pocket of the said trousers, a plastic pipe was found which contained a broken pack with two shining silver like papers, one smoking pipe and one cigarette pack containing one Cavander cigarette. It also contained 8 small pieces of paper and gum tape. The said material was also seized and sealed. Necessary panchnama (Exh. 18) was prepared in presence of the panchas. The house of the appellant was also searched, but no narcotic drug/psychotropic substance was found. The police found a ration card from a tin box which was seized. The appellant was called upon to produce any pass or permit for possessing brown sugar which he admitted that he did not have. The PI thereafter lodged the complaint Exh. 31. Thereafter the accused was arrested under seizure memo Exh. 30. The PI also informed the Assistant Police Commissioner about seizure of the material and arrest of the appellant vide report (Exh. 34 ). While the aforesaid version of the police officer was not shaken in the cross examination, in response to the defence suggestion, the police officer did say that the pipe, cigarette and the shining silver like papers were for smoking brown sager and that these materials were found from the left pocket of the appellants trousers. The police officer also admitted that the smoking pipe recovered from the appellants left pockets was a special smoking pipe for smoking brown sugar. He also admitted that the pieces of silver colour paper which were found from the match box were used for smoking brown sugar. It was also suggested to the police officer in the cross examination that the ration card in question was not found at the time of search, but it was called for by the police on the next day when the appellants wife visited the police station for meeting the appellant; the suggestion was, however, denied. 4. It was also suggested to the police officer in the cross examination that the ration card in question was not found at the time of search, but it was called for by the police on the next day when the appellants wife visited the police station for meeting the appellant; the suggestion was, however, denied. 4. 2 the next police witness was PW 4 Pravinsinh Abhaysinh Zala, Head Constable at the Gaekwad Haveli Police Station in DCB Crime Branch, who was Police Station Officer at the said police station and who had received the muddamal articles and the accused at the police station at Exh. 37. The said witness identified the muddamal articles produced before the Court and stated that the said articles were handed over by him to Head Writer Ranchhodbhai. A suggestion was put to this witness also that the ration card was not recovered on 4. 8. 1997, but it was received by the police on 5. 8. 1997. PW 5 Ranchhodbhai Vashrambhai was the Head Writer at the aforesaid police station who also identified the muddamal articles and stated that he had handed over the muddamal articles to Police Constable Jitendrasingh Ghanshyamsingh for handing over the same to the FSL. The cross examination of this witness is also on the same lines as the cross examination of Head Writer Pravinsinh Abhaysinh. 4. 3 pw 6 Jitendrasingh Ghanshyamsingh (Exh. 41) was the next witness, who was a member of the raiding party and who handed over the muddamal articles to the FSL on 5. 8. 1997. The cross examination of this witness is also on the same lines as the cross examination of PI Mr NK Chudasama. PW 7 Mr Natvarsinh Raubha Parmar (Exh. 42), Assistant Police Commissioner was examined to show the receipt of the report dated 4. 8. 1997 from PI Mr Chaudasama. PW 8 Krushnakumar Mahipatsinh Gohil (Exh. 47) was PSI at the above police station and was a member of the raiding party. He also deposed on the same lines as PI Mr Chudasama. This witness further stated that during investigation the police also arrested Husein Miya Riyaz Miya (accused No. 2 ). 8. 1997 from PI Mr Chaudasama. PW 8 Krushnakumar Mahipatsinh Gohil (Exh. 47) was PSI at the above police station and was a member of the raiding party. He also deposed on the same lines as PI Mr Chudasama. This witness further stated that during investigation the police also arrested Husein Miya Riyaz Miya (accused No. 2 ). The Court also put questions to this witness about any evidence found against accused No. 2-Husein Miya Riyaz Miya and this witness stated that he had received information from the informant that Husein Miya is doing the business of selling brown sugar. Hence, the witness had reason to arrest said accused No. 2 also. 4. 4 The statement of the appellant under Section 313 Cr. PC was recorded where the appellant denied the accusations made against him and in his reply to the question whether he wanted to state anything else, the appellant stated that he was selling vegetables in a lari near Madhavpura Police Station and an Inspector called Gohil had approached the appellant and asked the appellants name. The appellant was asked to take a scooter ride with the police officer who took the appellant to the Haveli Police Station. The appellant was asked to wait there where a person called Hasenmiya was also sitting. The appellant was made to wait 2-3 hours and then was put in the lock up. When the appellants wife went to the police station to get the appellant released, the appellants wife was told that if she got the ration card on the next day, the appellant would be released. On the next night, the police officer came with 5 to 10 papers and asked the appellant to sign them and the appellant complied with the said instructions. When the appellants wife also went to the police station, she was also asked to sign some papers, but the appellant was not informed anything and a false case was filed. ( 5 ) AFTER considering the evidence on record and the arguments of the learned APP and the learned counsel for the defence, the learned Additional City Sessions Judge held the appellant to be guilty of the offence punishable under Section 21 read with Section 8 (c) of the NDPS Act and heard the appellant on question of sentence. ( 5 ) AFTER considering the evidence on record and the arguments of the learned APP and the learned counsel for the defence, the learned Additional City Sessions Judge held the appellant to be guilty of the offence punishable under Section 21 read with Section 8 (c) of the NDPS Act and heard the appellant on question of sentence. The appellant stated that he is poor, selling vegetables and has a widowed mother and nobody else to look after. Ultimately, by judgment and order dated 1. 7. 1998, the appellant is convicted of the aforesaid offences and the appellant is sentenced to suffer RI for ten years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, in default RI for one year. It is against the aforesaid judgment that the present appeal has been filed. ( 6 ) WE have heard Mrs Shilpa J Unwala, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr KC Shah, learned APP for the State. ( 7 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant made the following submissions :-7. 1 the appellant was falsely involved in the offence. It was the case of the appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr. PC that the appellant was called to the police station and a person called Hasanmiya was already sitting in the police station. Said Hasanmiya was arrayed as accused No. 2 and was arrested on 5. 8. 1997. On 27. 11. 1997, the appellant had given a complaint of having been beaten up by the warder and a watchman. On the same day, the learned Additional City Sessions Judge directed the Superintendent of the Central Jail to make arrangements for medical treatment of the appellant and also to make necessary inquiry and to submit a report. On the returnable date, i. e. on 2. 12. 1997, the Superintendent of Ahmedabad Central Jail submitted a report to the effect that the appellant had gone to the Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad for treatment on 26. 11. 1997 and had returned to the jail in the evening where he had fallen down because of improper mental state and prisoner warder-Parbhatsinh Jilubha Vaghela and prisoner watchman-Ramsinh Jetuji had helped the appellant to get up and on enquiry the appellant had abused those persons. Hence, prisoner warder-Vaghela had slapped the appellant and sent the appellant to his ward. 11. 1997 and had returned to the jail in the evening where he had fallen down because of improper mental state and prisoner warder-Parbhatsinh Jilubha Vaghela and prisoner watchman-Ramsinh Jetuji had helped the appellant to get up and on enquiry the appellant had abused those persons. Hence, prisoner warder-Vaghela had slapped the appellant and sent the appellant to his ward. The appellant had not submitted any report to the jail authorities about the aforesaid incident and the appellant had also stated that he was not interested in pursuing the matter. The learned Additional City Sessions Judge recorded the said report on 2. 12. 1997. It is submitted that on 2. 12. 1997 itself, accused No. 2-Husein Miya Riyaz Miya submitted his discharge application and the same was granted on 9. 12. 1997. It is, therefore, submitted by the learned counsel that the appellant was wrongly involved in the offence. 7. 2 in the alternative, it is submitted that the quantity recovered from the appellant was for personal consumption of the appellant and it was a small quantity as contemplated by Section 27 of the NDPS Act. It is, therefore, submitted that the appellant could not have been sentenced for any term longer than one year. The learned counsel has, therefore, submitted that the appellant who has already undergone sentence of six years including the set off for the custody during the period of trial, is entitled to be released. ( 8 ) ON the other hand, Mr KC Shah, learned APP has submitted that the evidence of as many as six police officers is enough to establish the offence against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and that no animosity is alleged against the police officers. As regards the alternative argument made by the learned counsel for the defence, the learned APP has submitted that the plea of personal consumption of small quantity was not raised by appellant-accused No. 1 at the trial or in the statement under Section 313 Cr. PC. Therefore, such a plea cannot be permitted to be raised at this stage. As regards the alternative argument made by the learned counsel for the defence, the learned APP has submitted that the plea of personal consumption of small quantity was not raised by appellant-accused No. 1 at the trial or in the statement under Section 313 Cr. PC. Therefore, such a plea cannot be permitted to be raised at this stage. ( 9 ) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the evidence, we are of the view that the oral evidence as well as the documentary evidence on record is sufficient to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was having 28 small packets of brown sugar in his trousers on 4. 8. 1997. Although the panch witnesses have turned hostile, they have identified their signatures on the panchnama (Exh. 18) which was prepared in the evening of 4. 8. 1997 at 6. 30 PM. The panchnama was prepared in the presence of Mr Chudasama, PI, Narcotic Cell, DCB, Ahmedabad City and all the above four police witnesses have deposed as to when the prior information was received and the raid war carried out. Their evidence has not been shaken in the cross examination. The only suggestion made in the defence is that the ration card which was one of the muddamal articles was not recovered at the time of raid or search, but subsequently it was procured by the police from the appellants wife. However, the recovery of the ration card is mentioned in the panchnama itself which was prepared on 4. 8. 1997 at 6. 30 PM and there is nothing on record to show that the police officers would falsely involve the appellant in the offence. As far as the FSL report (Exh. 50) is concerned, the relevant portion reads as under :-The seal bandh parcel of khakhi paper contained brownish powder of nett weight of 3. 100 grms and the final opinion of the Scientific Officer Mr MC Champaneria was as under :-"on the basis of chemical analysis of sample Mark "a", the material therein contained Morphine, Diacetylmorphine (Heroin), 6-Mono Acetyle Morphine, Codeine, Acetyl Codeine, Papaverine, Thienyl and narcotics. 100 grms and the final opinion of the Scientific Officer Mr MC Champaneria was as under :-"on the basis of chemical analysis of sample Mark "a", the material therein contained Morphine, Diacetylmorphine (Heroin), 6-Mono Acetyle Morphine, Codeine, Acetyl Codeine, Papaverine, Thienyl and narcotics. " ( 10 ) IN view of the above finding that the material was found from the person of the accused when the search was carried out in accordance with the provisions of Sections 42 and 50 of the Act and when the material contained the aforesaid ingredients, the finding given by the learned Additional City Sessions Judge that the accused was found to be possessing 28 small packets of brown sugar of nett weight of 3. 100 grms. cannot be faulted with. However, that still requires consideration of the alternative submission made by Mrs Unwala, learned counsel for the defence that the quantity was being carried by the appellant on his person for the purpose of his personal consumption and that the quantity was small as contemplated by Section 27 of the NDPS Act. The learned counsel has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Gaunter Edwin Kircher vs. State of Goa, (1993) 3 SCC 145 in support of her submission that even if such a plea was not raised by the appellant-accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr. PC. , it is open to the accused to raise such a plea at the time of arguments or even in appeal. She has further submitted that it was also suggested to PI Mr Chudasama that the pipe and the silver like shining papers recovered from the left pocket of the appellants trousers were materials for smoking brown sugar and that the police officer had in terms admitted that those materials recovered from the left side pocket of the appellants trousers were materials for smoking brown sugar. The learned counsel has also relied on the provisions of section 27 of the Act and the notification dated 16. 7. 1996 specifying the small quantity for the purposes of the provisions of Section 27 of the Act. The learned counsel has also relied on the provisions of section 27 of the Act and the notification dated 16. 7. 1996 specifying the small quantity for the purposes of the provisions of Section 27 of the Act. ( 11 ) ON the other hand, Mr KC Shah, learned APP has submitted that it was the prosecution case throughout that the appellant was engaged in the business of selling brown sugar and, therefore, the plea of personal consumption was required to be raised by the appellant earlier and also in his statement under Section 313 Cr. PC. ( 12 ) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties, we find considerable substance in the submission of Mrs Shilpa J Unwala that the appellant had been suggesting in the cross examination of the police officers that the smoking pipe and the pieces of paper found from the appellant at the time of search itself were materials for smoking brown sugar. The said aspect taken in conjunction with the fact that nothing was found from the appellants house at the time of search which was carried out just outside the appellants house and that the appellant had put this suggestion to the police officers in their cross examination who admitted that the materials were for smoking brown sugar, lends credence to the appellants case that he was carrying these small packets of brown sugar for his personal consumption and not for sale or distribution. As regards the objection from the learned APP, we find that the appellant had made this suggestion in the cross examination of the police officers and, therefore, the appellant is not making out a new case for the first time. ( 13 ) IN Gaunter Edwin Kircher vs. State of Goa, (1993) 3 SCC 145 , the accused was found in possession of two pieces of charas, weighing 7 grms. and 5 grms. When examined under Section 313 Cr. PC, the accused took up a plea of general denial of being in possession of any charas and said that he had only a pouch containing tobacco and that he was taken to the police station and was falsely implicated. The trial Court convicted him under Section 20 (b) (ii) of the NDPS Act and the High Court dismissed the appeal. The trial Court convicted him under Section 20 (b) (ii) of the NDPS Act and the High Court dismissed the appeal. In appeal, the Apex Court allowed him to raise the plea in the facts and circumstances of the case and having found that only 5 grms. of charas was sent for chemical analysis and not the other quantity, the Apex Court accepted the plea of the accused and altered the conviction to one under Section 27 of the Act and reduced the sentence from 10 years to six months. It is, therefore, clear that if there is some material on record to show that the accused had raised the plea of personal consumption in some form, it is open to the Court to consider such a plea even though it was not in terms raised at the time of arguments before the trial Court. ( 14 ) AT this stage, it will be necessary to set out the provisions of Section 27 of the NDPS Act prior to their amendment by the Amendment Act of 2001, which read as under :-"27. Punishment for illegal possession in small quantity for personal consumption of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or consumption of such drug or substance.- Whoever, in contravention of any provision of this Act, or any rule or order made or permit issued thereunder, possesses in a small quantity, any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance, which is proved to have been intended for his personal consumption and nor for sale or distribution, or consumed any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance, shall, notwithstanding anything contained in this Chapter, be punishable,- (a) where the narcotic drug or psychotropic substance possessed or consumed is cocaine, morphine, diacetyl-morphine or any other narcotic drug or any psychotropic substance as may be specified in this behalf by the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine or with both; and (b) where the narcotic drug or psychotropic substance possessed or consumed is other than those specified in or under clause (a), with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine or with both. Explanation.- (1) For the purposes of this section "small quantity" means such quantity as may be specified by the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette. Explanation.- (1) For the purposes of this section "small quantity" means such quantity as may be specified by the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette. (2) where a person is shown to have been in possession of a small quantity of a narcotic drug or psychotropic substance, the burden of proving that it was intended for the personal consumption of such person and not for sale or distribution, shall lie on such person. "earlier the Central Government had issued notification dated 14. 11. 1985 specifying the narcotic drugs/psychotropic substances and their quantity for the purposes of Section 27 of the Act. The said notification was thereafter superseded by the notification dated 16. 7. 1996 specifying as many as 218 narcotic drugs/psychotropic substances and the respective quantity so as to qualify as a small quantity within the meaning of Section 27 of the Act. Some of those items read as under:- Item No. Name of narcotic drugs/ psychotropic Quantity in grms. substances 40 Thienyl 5 42 Codeince 10 43 Paracodine and Acetyl Codone 10 106 Morphine Methobromide and other 2 pentavalent nitrogen morphine we may refer to the fact that the FSL report does not give separate weight of 8 substances mentioned in the opinion. However, considering the fact that the total nett weight of entire quantity of powder seized from the appellant is only 3. 100 grms. and considering the fact that for the items at Sr. Nos. 40, 42 and 43, the small quantity prescribed is 5, 10 and 10 grms. respectively, in our view, it is not necessary to undertake any further exercise of entering into any discussion about the exact weight of various ingredients of the powder seized from the appellant. In our view, therefore, the plea raised by Mrs Shilpa J Unwala that the material possessed by the appellant and recovered from the appellant at the time of search was intended for his personal consumption and not for sale or distribution deserves to be accepted. ( 15 ) SINCE the offence in the present case was committed on 4. 8. 1997 and the judgment of the trial Court was delivered on 1. 7. 1998, the amended provisions of Section 21 are not applicable, but a look at the Schedule to the Act as amended by the NDPS (Amendment) Act, 2001 with effect from 2. 10. ( 15 ) SINCE the offence in the present case was committed on 4. 8. 1997 and the judgment of the trial Court was delivered on 1. 7. 1998, the amended provisions of Section 21 are not applicable, but a look at the Schedule to the Act as amended by the NDPS (Amendment) Act, 2001 with effect from 2. 10. 2001 prescribes the following parameters of small quantity and commercial quantity :- Sr. No. Name (INN) Small quantity Commercial Quantity (in gms) upto (in gms. /kg.) 3 Acetyldihydrocodeine 5 100 gms. or more 28 Codeine 10 1 Kg. or more 56 Heroin 5 250 gms. or more 77 Morphine 5 250 gms. or more the amended provisions provide that if the quantity of NDPS possessed is small quantity, maximum sentence is six months. If the quantity of NDPS possessed is commercial quantity, the minimum sentence is 10 years and maximum 20 years. But where the quantity is more than small and less than commercial, the Court is granted discretion to award sentence upto 10 years without stipulating any minimum. We are concerned to note that the significance of this amendment is lost to a number of trial Court Judges who do not appreciate the rationality and proportionality of the sentencing policy underlying the amended NDPS Act which applies even to the trials pending on 2. 10. 2001 even if the offence took place before that date. ( 16 ) IN view of the above discussion, we alter the conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 21 read with Section 8 (c) of the NDPS Act to Section 27 of the NDPS Act. The maximum sentence for the offence punishable under Section 27 is one year or with fine or with both where the narcotic drug or psychotropic substance possessed or consumed is cocaine, morphine, diacetyl-morphine or any other narcotic drug or any psychotropic substance. In case of other narcotic drugs/psychotropic substances, the sentence may be awarded upto six months or with fine or with both. In view of the above, the maximum sentence to be awarded to the appellant could not have been more than one year. Since the appellant has already undergone more than six years imprisonment, we do not think that this would be a case for imposing any fine on the appellant. In view of the above, the maximum sentence to be awarded to the appellant could not have been more than one year. Since the appellant has already undergone more than six years imprisonment, we do not think that this would be a case for imposing any fine on the appellant. ( 17 ) IN view of the above discussion, the appeal is partly allowed. The appellants conviction for the offence punishable under Section 21 read with Section 8 (c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 is altered to conviction for the offence punishable under Section 27 of the said Act and the appellant is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year. Since the appellant has already undergone more than the said period of sentence, no fine is imposed and appellant-Dilip Chimanlal Shikari is ordered to be released forthwith, if not required in connection with any other offence. .