Judgment Ghanshyam Prasad, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 2.8.2004 and its order of sentence dated 6.8.2004 passed by Sri Bipin Dutta Pathak, 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram in Sasaram (Town) P.S. case no. 135/97. The sole appellant has been convicted under Sec.21 of N.D.P.S. Act and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years with fine of rupees one lac and in default of payment of fine to undergo further imprisonment for two years R.I. 2. The prosecution story in short is that on 7.3.1997 S.I. Hari Narayan Prasad, Of-ficer-in-Charge Sasaram Police Station was on petrolling duty. In course of it he received secret information that a person was coming from Sheosagar along with heroin from bus. The police party reached at bus stand at 2.20 A.M. On seeing the police party one person began to flee. He was chased and caught who disclosed his name as Anwar Ali (appellant). After completing formalities of provisions of Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act the body of the appellant was searched in presence of two independent witnesses namely, Krishna Mahto and Nand Kishore Sharma. Ten Puriyas of heroin were recovered from his pocket apart from two self dynamos of diesel engine. 3. Ten Puriyas of heroin was weighed. The weight of heroin was found to be only five grams. Seizure list was prepared by the Officer-in-charge and sample of heroin was sent to the analyst for chemical examination. The appellant was also arrested and sent to jail custody. 4. The sample after examination by the analyst was found to be highly addictive intoxicant (ext. 1). On the basis of Fardbeyan lodged by S.I. Hari Narayan Prasad a case was registered under Sections 8(C)/17/21/27 of N.D.P.S. Act as well under Sec. 414 of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation the police submitted charge-sheet under the above Sections against the appellant. 5. In course of trial the prosecution examined only five witnesses including the informant. Hari Narayan Prasad as P.W. 5. 6. The defence is mere denial of the occurrence and plea of innocence. However, no witness has been examined on behalf of the defence. 7. The learned lower Court after trial vide impugned judgment found the appellant guilty only under Sec.21 of N.D.P.S. Act and sentenced him accordingly. Hari Narayan Prasad as P.W. 5. 6. The defence is mere denial of the occurrence and plea of innocence. However, no witness has been examined on behalf of the defence. 7. The learned lower Court after trial vide impugned judgment found the appellant guilty only under Sec.21 of N.D.P.S. Act and sentenced him accordingly. It is to be noted here that the appellant is in jail custody since the date of occurrence i.e. 7.3.1997, meaning thereby, he is in jail custody for more than ten years. 8. After some arguments, learned counsel, Mrs. Madhuri Lata appearing as amicus curaie, conceded that there is no merit on the point of conviction recorded by the lower Court under Sec.21 of N.D.P.S. Act. Hence, she confined her submission only to the point of sentence. 9. It is submitted that the lower Court has committed serious error in awarding the sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years with fine of rupees one lac. On the date of judgment the Principal Act was amended vide Act No. 9 of 2001 under which the maximum sentence for possession of illicit article in small quantity is only six months with fine or rupees ten thousand. But the Court below has awarded sentence under the Principal Act, 1985 in which minimum sentence is ten years with fine of rupees one lac. It is further submitted that the appellant has already served much more than the maximum sentence provided under the N.D.P.S. Act. 10. I find substance in the submission of learned counsel for the appellant. It is true that the occurrence took place much before the enactment of amended Act 9 of 2001. Thereafter, three grades of sentence are provided under Sec.21 of N.D.P.S. Act depending upon the quantity of article. For possession of small quantity the punishment prescribed is imprisonment for six months with fine of rupees ten thousand. The table is attached in the amended Act specifying the quantity of small quantity and commercial quantity. In case of heroin the small quantity is five grams. In this case the appellant was found in possession of heroin weighing five grams only. 11. Sec. 41 of amended Act 9 of 2001 provides applicability of amended Act in pending cases. Accordingly to Sec. 41 of the amended Act even in pending cases the accused shall be liable for punishment which is lesser in either of the Act. In this case the appellant was found in possession of heroin weighing five grams only. 11. Sec. 41 of amended Act 9 of 2001 provides applicability of amended Act in pending cases. Accordingly to Sec. 41 of the amended Act even in pending cases the accused shall be liable for punishment which is lesser in either of the Act. In view of the above, it is quite clear that in the present case also which was pending on the date of commencement of the amended Act, the accused-appellant shall be liable to punishment in accordance with the amended provision of Sec.21 of N.D.P.S. Act in which lesser punishment is provided. Admittedly the quantity of heroin is in small quantity as per the chart/table attached with the Act. 12. In the facts and circumstances of the case. It is quite clear that the lower Court has committed error in awarding the sentence to the appellant to the tune of rigorous imprisonment for ten years with fine of rupees one lac. The sentence awarded by the lower Court is hereby modified to the extent of rigorous imprisonment for six months with fine of rupees ten thousand, I default whereof to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. 13. In the result, this appeal is dismissed with modification in sentence as said above. 14. The appellant is in jail custody since more than ten years. In other words, he has already served modified imprisonment. Therefore, the appellant is directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.