ORDER S. Samvatsar, J. — This appeal is filed by the two accused persons who are convicted for committing offence under Sections 8/15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, ‘NDPS Act) for a period of ten years rigorous imprisonment by the Special Judge (NDPS Act) & First Additional Sessions Judge, Shivpuri. 2. The brief facts of the case are that both the accused persons were found in possession of 47 kgs of poppy-straw each at Bus-stand, Shivpuri. They were arrested by the police and after investigation the police filed challan against them for committing offence under Section 8/15 of the N.D.P.S. Act and after trial the trial Court convicted them for the said offence and sentenced them as aforesaid. 3. The only argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants is that appellants were found in possession of 47 kgs of poppy-straw hence they were convicted for committing the said offence for a period of ten years. According to the learned counsel now after amendment in the N.D.P.S. Act in the year 2001 the commercial quantity of the Poppy-straw is 50 kgs. and thus, the accused persons were found in possession of Poppy-straw which was less than the commercial quantity. In the light of the said amendment he submits that the appellants may be given benefit of the amended provisions of the Act by reducing their sentences. He further submits that the appellants have already undergone sentence of seven years each. 4. At the time of commission of offence the quantity of poppy-straw recovered from the possession of the present appellants was more than the commercial quantity. Hence, they were convicted for the offence and sentenced to ten years rigorous imprisonment. At that time the trial Court had no option but to sentence them not less than ten years. However, after amendment now the N.D.P.S. Act provides that a person having in possession of narcotic sub-stance can be convicted for a period which may extend to ten years. Thus, now the ten years sentence is not the maximum sentence and the Court has jurisdiction to impose lesser punishment. However, after amendment now the N.D.P.S. Act provides that a person having in possession of narcotic sub-stance can be convicted for a period which may extend to ten years. Thus, now the ten years sentence is not the maximum sentence and the Court has jurisdiction to impose lesser punishment. For this purpose counsel for the appellants has relied upon the judgment in the case of Ram Singh v. State of Haryana1 in which the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court has laid down that said Act No. 9 of 2001 shall be applicable to all cases including the cases pending in appeal inspite of fact that the offence was committed earlier to the amendment. 5. The Apex Court in the case of State v. Gian Singh2 has observed that if any subsequent legislation would down grade the harshness of the sentence for the same offence, it would be a salutary principle for an administration of original justice to suggest that the said legislative benevolence can be extended to the accused who awaits judicial verdict regarding sentence. 6. However, the Apex Court in the case of Basheer alias N.P. Basheer v. State of Kerala3 has laid down that the amendment in the NDPS Act of 2001 shall apply to pending cases but not in pending appeals and thus has overruled the view taken by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Ramsingh (supra). 7. In view of this judgment the provisions of the amended Act of 2001 cannot be made applicable in the present case and, therefore, no interference can be made in the punishment awarded by the Court below. 8. In the result, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed. 1. (2003) (I) EFR 444. 2. AIR 1999 SC 3450 . 3. 2004 SCC (Cri.) 1107.