JUDGMENT Virender Singh, J. - Amar Singh son of Fateh Singh stands convicted under Sections 17/18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short to be referred to as the Act) by learned Additional Sessions Judge (II), Bhiwani vide judgment dated 16.5.1997 and has been sentenced to undergo RI for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. one lac, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for one year. 2. In short the case of the prosecution is that on 9.7.1992, SI Dharambir Singh alongwith other police officials was present near pau at Mitathal and the appellant was noticed coming on foot from village Gujrani carrying a cloth bag in his right hand, who on spotting the police party became perplexed and was overpowered on suspicion. After completing all the legal formalities his search was conducted in which 1-1/2 kgs. of the opium was recovered from his possession. 3. The appellant was consequently challaned in this case. He was charged under section 18 of the Act. 4. After appreciating the entire evidence of the prosecution, the learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated above. 5. I have heard Mr. Gunjan Mehta, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Sanjiv Dahiya, learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. With their assistance, I have also gone through the entire record of the case. 6. At the very outset learned counsel for the appellant has very fairly stated that he does not press the appeal on merits and has confined his arguments only on the point the quantum of sentence. Strengthening his submissions, the learned counsel has submitted that as per 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 Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in Ram Singh v. State of Haryana, 2002(3) RCR 728, the amended provisions are also applicable to the pending appeals in which the offence was allegedly committed prior to the amendment. 7. Counsel for the appellant then contends that the appellant has already undergone five years of this actual substantive sentence. 7. Counsel for the appellant then contends that the appellant has already undergone five years of this actual substantive sentence. He further contends that admittedly the quantity allegedly recovered from the present appellant falls under the head "non-commercial" quantity and the appellant deserves the concession in the quantum of sentence. He then submits that at the time of conviction in the year 1997, the appellant was of the age of 65 years and presently he is of the age of 72 years. He then contends that being of the old age the appellant deserves a sympathetic tilt from this Court on the point of sentence. 8. The learned State counsel, on the other hand, had opposed the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. 9. Although the impugned judgment has not been assailed on merits, yet I have seen the entire evidence and find no infirmity in the impugned judgment of conviction and the conviction is thus confirmed. 10. So far as quantum of sentence is concerned, I find weightage in the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant. Admittedly, the alleged recovery falls under the head "non-commercial". The present case relates to the year 1972 and the appellant has already suffered the rigour of protracted trial of 12 years. As stated the appellant is of the age of 72 years. 11. Keeping in view all the circumstances of the case the ends of justice would be adequately met if the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the present appellant is reduced from ten years to four years and the sentence of fine is reduced to Rs. 10,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo further RI for six months. It is ordered accordingly. 12. With the modification on the point of quantum of substantive sentence and in regard to fine as indicated above, the present appeal stands dismissed. Appeal dismissed.