Judgment Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. 1. Sohan Singh son of Ajit Singh, was convicted and sentenced by the Judge, Special Court, Ludhiana, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default whereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for nine months for having in his possession 25 Kgs. & 500 grams of poppy husk. 2. In the present case, appellant was apprehended by a police party led by Sukhdev Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, on 23.9.1998 and poppy husk weighing 25 Kgs. & 500 grams was recovered from the appellant. Prosecution had examined six witnesses. 3. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the appellant had denied all the incriminating circumstances and stated that he was falsely implicated. 4. Mr. Sidhu has very fairly stated that even though no independent witness was examined but he will not be in a position to impeach the credibility of police witnesses and except to point out discrepancies and contradictions, there is nothing in his arsenal to assail the conviction. Mr. Sidhu has stated that according to the table accompanying the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act), under Sub Clause vii(a) and xxiii(3) of Section 2 of the Act, under entry No. 110, the commercial quantity has been described as 50 Kgs. Under Section 15(b) of the Act where the contravention involves quantity lesser than commercial quantity but greater than small quantity, the maximum punishmentprescribed is for a term which can extend to ten years and with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees. 5. Mr. Sidhu states that the trial Court had awarded four years sentence and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- upon the appellant. It has been submitted that in the present case, recovery was effected on 23.9.1998. The appellant has suffered a protracted trial of more than ten years and the appellant was 35 years old when the recovery was effected. Mr. Sidhu has further stated that the appellant has large family to support and in the last ten years, he has committed no offence. Therefore, sentence awarded upon the appellant be reduced taking into consideration antecedents, protracted trial and the fact that in case appellant is sent behind the bars, his family may face vagaries. 6. I find merit in this contention of counsel for the appellant. 7. Therefore, sentence awarded upon the appellant be reduced taking into consideration antecedents, protracted trial and the fact that in case appellant is sent behind the bars, his family may face vagaries. 6. I find merit in this contention of counsel for the appellant. 7. Therefore, sentence awarded upon the appellant is reduced to one & a half years. However, sentence of fine is maintained. 8. With the observations made above, the present appeal is disposed off.