JUDGMENT Virender Singh, J. - Gurmeet Singh, the appellant-herein stands convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa vide judgment dated April 5, 2001 under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short to be referred to 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 two years. Aggrieved by the judgment of his conviction and sentence, the appellant has preferred the present appeal. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the prosecution is that on 30.6.1998 the appellant was apprehended on suspicion by the police party headed by ASI Baldev Singh. After completing all the necessary formalities, including notice under Section 50 of the Act, 20 Kilograms of poppy husk was recovered from the bag carried by him on his head, for which he did not possess any permit or licence. After completion of investigation the appellant was challaned to face trial. He was charged under Section 15 of the Act and after examining the entire evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced him as indicated above. 3. I have heard Mr. Kuldeep Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Sanjeev Dahiya, learned Assistant Advocate General for the State of Haryana. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant has not assailed the impugned judgment of conviction on merits and has instead prayed for reduction in the sentence. 5. Though the impugned judgment of conviction has not been assailed, 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 againt him. His conviction under section 15 of the Act is affirmed. 6. On the question of quantum of sentence, Mr. Kuldeep Singh contends that according to the amended provisions of the Act as substituted by Act No. 9 of 2001, lesser sentence 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 Ram Singh v. State of Haryana, 2002(3) RCC 425 the amended provision are also applicable to the pending appeals in which the offence was committed prior to the amendment. In support of his case, Mr. In support of his case, Mr. Kuldeep Singh relies upon another decision of this Court in Ram Sarup v. State of Punjab, Criminal Appeal No. 276-SB of 1991, decided on 21.10.2003, in whcih case the recovery was 40 Kgs of poppy husk and the sentence was reduced from ten years R.I. to two and half years R.I. and the sentence of fine was reduced from Rs. one lac to Rs. 5000/-. 7. The learned State counsel refutes the arguments advanced by Mr. Kuldeep Singh and contends that the appellant does not deserve any leniency on the quantum of sentence. 8. After hearing the rival contentions of both the sides, I find force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant. Admittedly, the recovery of contraband in the present case is 20 Kgs of poppy husk which does not fall within th head "Commercial Quantity". The case relates to the year 2000. The appellant has already faced the agony of protracted trial for the last more than three years. The judgment rendered in Ram Sarups case (supra) squarely covers the cse of the appellant. 9. In my considred view, the ends of justice would adequately be met if the period of sentence awarded by the trial Court is reduced from ten years RI to two years RI and the sentence of fine is reduced from Rs. one lac to Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of which he shall have to undergo further RI for six months. It is ordered accordingly. 10. With the modification in quantum of sentence as indicated above, the appeal stands dismissed. It has been brought to my notice at this juncture that the appellant is in custody after his conviction. Intimation of the result of the present appeal be given to the quarters concerned at once. Appeal dismissed.