Judgment Ghanshyam Prasad, J. 1. The appellant Ram Kishun Jha, has called in question his conviction and sentence passed under Sec.20(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") vide judgment and its order dated 29.9.2003/ 30.9.2003 passed by Sri Arun Kumar, Additional Sessions Judge. Darbhanga in G.O. Case No. 04/2001 this appellant has been convicted under Sec.20(B) of N.D.P.S. Act [wrongly mentioned as 20(c)] and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and a fine of rupees one lakh and in default of fine he has been directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for further two years. 2. It appears that on 31.3.2001 the officer-in-charge of Balabhadrapur police station raided the house of this appellant and recovered 21 Kg. Ganja. This appellant and one Satyendra Lai Deo were arrested from the house. Ultimately both were put on trial for the charges framed under Sections 20 and 23 of N.D.P.S. Act. 3. In course of trial six witnesses were examined from the side of prosecution. From defence side also one witness was examined. Ultimately vide impugned judgment and order Satyendra Lal Deo was acquitted but this appellant was found guilty only under Sec.20(B) of N.D.P.S. Act. He was acquitted of the charge framed under Sec.23 of N.D.P.S. Act. Vide judgment dated 30.9.2003 the learned lower court sentenced the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years with a fine of rupees one lakh. 4. In course of hearing learned counsel for the appellant confined his submission only on the point of sentence. He did not challenge the findings of guilt to the appellant under Sec.20(B) of the Act. Submission of learned counsel is that the learned lower court has committed grave error in awarding sentence for rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine of rupees one lakh. The ganja was recovered from this appellant on 31.3.2001. On that very day the Principal N.D.P.S. Act of 1985 was in vogue. The maximum punishment under Sec.20 of N.D.P.S. Act for such offence is only five years with maximum fine of rupees fifty thousand. But the learned lower court awarded sentence on the basis of the amended Act of N.D.P.S. which came into force much after the alleged date of the occurrence. The maximum punishment under Sec.20 of N.D.P.S. Act for such offence is only five years with maximum fine of rupees fifty thousand. But the learned lower court awarded sentence on the basis of the amended Act of N.D.P.S. which came into force much after the alleged date of the occurrence. The appellant has remained in jail custody for more than the maximum sentence provided under Principal N.D.P.S. Act of 1985 being in custody since 31.3.2001. 5. This Court finds truth in the submission of learned counsel for the appellant. Under Sec.20(B) of the Principal N.D.P.S. Act of 1985 the maximum punishment is five years with maximum fine of rupees fifty thousand which runs as follows: "20. Punishment for contravention in relation to cannabis plant and cannabis.-Whoever, in contravention of any provision of this Act or any rule or order made or condition of licence granted thereunder, (a) cultivates any cannabis plant; or (b) produces, manufactures, possesses, sells, purchases, transports, imports inter-State-exports inter-State or uses cannabis. (i) where such contravention relates to ganja or the cultivation of cannabis plant, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to fifty thousand; 6. Sec.20 of the Principal Act, 1985 was amended by Act No. 9 of 2001 which came into force on 2.10.2002. Thereafter, sentence for such offence was enhanced to maximum upto twenty years and a fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees which may extend to two lakh rupees. The applicability of the amended Act, 2001 to the pending cases is provided under Sec. 41 of the Amended Act, 2001 which runs as follows: "41. Application of this Act to pending cases.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2) of Sec.1 all cases pending before the courts or under investigation at the commencement of this Act shall be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the Principal Act as amended by this Act and accordingly, any person found guilty of any offence punishable under the principal Act, as it stood immediately before such commencement shall be liable for a punishment which is lesser than the punishment for which he is otherwise liable at the date of the commission of such offence: Provided that nothing in this Section shall apply to cases pending in appeal. (2) For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that no act or omission on the part of any person shall be punishable as an offence which would not have been so punishable if this Act has not come into force." 6A. Thus it is quite clear that in cases instituted earlier to the amended Act came into being shall be covered by the Principal Act in which lesser punishment is provided for such offence. The court below has committed error in awarding sentence to the appellant much in excess of the sentence provided in Principal Act on the basis of amended Act which was not in force on the date of the occurrence. It appears that the appellant has already remained in jail custody for about six years which is more than the maximum punishment provided under the Principal Act. Therefore, it is in fitness of the case that the sentence awarded to the appellant may be modified to the extent already undergone in jail custody which shall also include the period of sentence in default of fine. 7 Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in part as mentioned above and the sentence awarded to the appellant set aside and is modified to the extent of period already undergone in jail custody. The appellant is directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.