JUDGMENT Virender Singh, J. - Randhir son of Attar Singh stands convicted under section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short the Act) by learned Additional Sessions Judge (II), Bhiwani vide judgment dated 9.5.1997 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 15.3.1995, ASI Dharam Pal alongwith other police officials was present at bus stand Singhani and the appellant was noticed carrying a plastic bag of white colour, on his right shoulder coming towards them, 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 10 Kgs. of choorapost was recovered from his possession. 3. The appellant was consequently challaned in this case. He was charged under section 15 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 of 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(Crl.) 728 (P&H), 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 his actual substantive sentence. He further contends that admittedly the quantity allegedly recovered from the present appellant fall under the head "non-commercial" quantity. 7. Counsel for the appellant then contends that the appellant has already undergone five years of his actual substantive sentence. He further contends that admittedly the quantity allegedly recovered from the present appellant fall under the head "non-commercial" quantity. He then submits that presently the appellant is of the age of 72 years and being of the old age he deserves a sympathetic tilt from this Court with regard to sentence. 8. The learned State counsel on the other hand has 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 same 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 1995 and the appellant has already suffered the rigour of protracted trial of 9 years. As stated the appellant is of the age of 72 years and has also undergone five years of his substantive sentence. 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 two years and the sentence of fine is reduced to Rs. 5,000/-. 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.