Judgment Virender Singh, J. 1. Appellants Balkar Singh and Amarjit Kaur were charged under section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinaftaer referred to as the Act ) for allegedly keeping in their possession 6 grams of smack without any permit or licence. Vide impugned judgment of learned Additional sessions Judge-cum-Judge, Special Court, Amritsar, they stand convicted of the charge and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- each. In default of payment of fine, they have been ordered to undergo further RI for 15 days. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence, they have preferred the instant appeal. 2. I am disposing of the instant appeal at motion stage itself for the reason that counsel for the appellants has not joined issue on merits and instead confined her arguments with regard to quantum of sentence only. 3. I have otherwise gone through the impugned judgment very minutely and find no infirmity in the same. The conviction as recorded by the trial court is consequently upheld. With regard to quantum of sentence, the learned counsel submits that by now Balkar Singh appellant has undergone 5 months and a few odd days, whereas Amarjit Kaur appellant has also undergone 3 months and a few odd days. Mrs. Mann states that so far as Balkar Singh is concerned, his substantive sentence is likely to be completed within a few days, whereas Amarjit Kaur has also undergone more than half of her substantive sentence. In order to show their detention period, the learned counsel has produced the Jail Certificates of both the appellants duly issued by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Amritsar. The same are taken on record. 4. The learned counsel then submits that both the appellants are not previous convicts. Amarjit Kaur appellant has 3 small children, who are wholly dependent upon her. So is the position of Balkar Singh. 5. On the basis of the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel prays for some lenient view with regard to quantum of sentence. The prayer is vehemently opposed by the learned State counsel. I find substance in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants. So is the position of Balkar Singh. 5. On the basis of the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel prays for some lenient view with regard to quantum of sentence. The prayer is vehemently opposed by the learned State counsel. I find substance in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants. So far as Balkar Singh appellant is concerned, his substantive sentence is likely to be over within a few days except that he would have to undergo for some more period for the default clause. So far as Amarjit Kaur appellant is concerned, she has also undergone more than half of her substantive sentence. The learned State counsel has not been able to controvert the statement of Mrs. Mann with regard to the flash back of the appellants that they are not previous convicts. 6. In view of the aforesaid factual position, the ends of justice would be adequately met if the substantive sentence imposed upon the appellants is reduced to the period already undergone by them. Ordered accordingly. However, the sentence for default clause shall remain the same, as already observed by the trial Court. The net result is that the appeal is dismissed on merits except with the modifications in the quantum of sentence, as indicated hereinabove. January 20, 2006.