Judgment ( 1. ) APPELLANT herein stands convicted under Section 8/21 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 by Special Judge (N. D. P. S. Act), Mandsaur District, Mandsaur (M. P.) vide his judgment and order passed on 31-3-2000 in Special Case No. 141/97. ( 2. ) 2-A. Briefly stated, the prosecutions case is that Kailash Narayan Sharma (P. W. 12) was posted as Assistant Sub Inspector at Police Station, Suwasra. As at that day the Station House Officer of Police Station was not present at the Police Station, therefore, he was the Incharge of Police Station, Suwasra, District Mandsaur. On that day, he received a secret information that Bherulal s/o Mangilal r/o Basai is keeping smack illegally in his possession. Kailash Narayan Sharma (P. W. 12) made an entry in daily Roznamcha and he also apprised Ratan Singh and Omprakash, Constables posted at the Police Station, Suwasra. Panchnama (Ex. P-15) was prepared by Kailash Narayan Sharma (P. W. 12) and the information was taken down and a copy of the information, so taken down, was sent to Sub Divisional Officer (Police) along with covering letter (Ex. P-18 ). 2-B. Thereafter, Kailash Narayan Sharma (P. W. 12) started to Village Basai alongwith the police force and "panch" witnesses. Kailash Narayan Sharma (P. W. 12) along with search party reached at the floor mill where "panch" told him, pointing towards person standing inside the floor mill that, that person was Bherulal Kailash Narayan Sharma (P. W. 12) then called that person. When he came outside, he asked his name and address. On being asked, that person gave his identity as Bherulal s/o Mangilal r/o Basai and he also told that premises where floor mill was installed belonged to him. Kailash Narayan Sharma (P. W. 12) told him about the information which he had received and apprised him that he intended to make a search of his shop, i. e. , floor mill and he made a search after obtaining consent of the appellant. Thereafter, during the search, appellant himself produced smack which tested and weighed and two samples of five grams each were taken out from the smack and they were separately sealed and seized; remaining smack was also sealed and seized. Respective seizure memos were prepared at the spot. The weight of the smack was found 200 gms. , out of which two samples of 5 gms. Respective seizure memos were prepared at the spot. The weight of the smack was found 200 gms. , out of which two samples of 5 gms. each were taken out. Appellant was arrested and a crime under Section 8/21 of N. D. P. S. Act was registered and after completing the required investigation, charge-sheet was filed against him. ( 3. ) TRIAL Court framed charge under Section 8/21 of N. D. P. S. Act (hereinafter referred to as act ). Appellant abjured the guilt and hence he was put to trial and after trial, he was convicted under Section 8/21 of the Act and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for ten years and a fine of Rupees one lakh; in default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two years. ( 4. ) LEARNED Counsel for appellant has not challenged the conviction of the appellant. He has only submitted that the sentence awarded to the appellant shall be reduced as only 200 gms. of smack has been recovered from him. Learned Counsel for State has submitted that at the time when offence was committed and when appellant was convicted, sentence for ten years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. one lakh was prescribed as minimum sentence to be awarded. Hence, sentence awarded to appellant can not be reduced and the quantity of smack seized is of no relevance. ( 5. ) IN Writ Petition No. 537/2003, Ramesh v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2003 (4) M. P. H. T. 78 (DB)], it has been held that the benefit of the amended provisions can be extended in pending appeals also. It is evident from the amended provisions that bar of awarding minimum ten years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. one lakh has been lifted and provisions for inflicting less punishments for small quantity has been made. By providing lesser sentences in cases where quantity involved is small and less than commercial quantity and by providing minimum sentence where quantity of contraband substance is commercial or more than commercial, legislature intended that the quantity of substance seized be also taken into account while inflicting the sentence. ( 6. ) ACCORDING to the Notification No. S. O. 1055 (E), dated 19th October, 2001, small quantity of opium derivative other than heroin, morphine and those listed therein is 5 gms. and the commercial quantity thereof is 250 gms. ( 6. ) ACCORDING to the Notification No. S. O. 1055 (E), dated 19th October, 2001, small quantity of opium derivative other than heroin, morphine and those listed therein is 5 gms. and the commercial quantity thereof is 250 gms. Smack is the derivative of opium, not listed in the table, hence the small quantity of smack would be taken to be prescribed as per aforesaid notification to be 5 gms. arid commercial quantity as 250 gm. Quantity of smack seized from the appellant is said to be 200 gms. which is less than the commercial quantity prescribed. Therefore, applicants case could be dealt with under Section 21 (b) of the Act. This section provides that where the contravention involves quantity lesser than commercial quantity, but greater than small quantity, accused could be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees. Thus, in case where quantity involved is less than commercial quantity prescribed by the Act, imprisonment for term less than ten years could also be passed and a fine of less than one lakh rupees could be awarded. ( 7. ) APPELLANT is first offender. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the period already undergone by the appellant and keeping in view the quantity of substance seized from his possession, sentence for imprisonment already undergone by him and a fine of Rs. 15,000/ (Rupees fifteen thousand) will meet the ends of justice. ( 8. ) HENCE, this appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellant under Section 8/21, N. D. P. S. Act is confirmed, but the sentence awarded to him is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for term already undergone by him and to pay a fine of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand); in default of payment of fine, he shall suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one year. Trial Courts order regarding disposal of the seized smack is maintained.