Judgment Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. 1. The present appeal has been filed by Ashok Paswan son of Rajinder Paswan. He was sentenced by the Court of Special Judge, Hoshiarpur, to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, in default whereof to further undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. The appellant was found in possession of 40 Kgs. of poppy husk. 2. The case of prosecution is that Atma Singh, Sub Inspector, along with his companion police officials, on 17.4.2001 was on patrol duty. Suspected persons were being checked. The police party when reached near katcha path leading towards the filed in the area of Urmur, appellant Ashok Pawan was sighted by him coming from the opposite side and he was carrying a bag on his head. On suspicion, he was apprehended by Atma Singh. Sub Inspector. At that time. Balwant Singh came there on a scooter and he was joined by a police party. Suspecting that appellant is carrying some contraband article, an offer was given to him to get himself searched from a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. The appellant disclosed that there was a poppy husk in the bag and he replied in pursuance of the offer made that he is willing to get himself searched from a Gazetted Officer. A wireless message was sent and the Deputy Superintendent of Police was requested to come at the spot. Necessary procedure for search and seizure was followed. 3. At this stage, Mr. J..B. S.Gill, Advocate, at the outset, has stated that he will not be assailing conviction of the appellant but shall be making a legal submission regarding quantum of sentence. It is stated that an amendment was made to the Act on 2.10.2001 by the amending Act No. 9 of 2001, which came into force w.e.f. 2.10.2001. Small quantity and commercial quantity have been defined and table has been added, to Sub Clause vii(a) and xxiii(a) of Section 2 of the Act, as per entry No. 110, poppy straw, small quantity defined is 1 Kg. and commercial quantity has been defined as 50 Kgs. Mr. J.B.S.Gill has further stated that from the appellant, 40 Kgs. of poppy husk has been recovered, therefore, same is to be held as non-commercial quantity. 4. and commercial quantity has been defined as 50 Kgs. Mr. J.B.S.Gill has further stated that from the appellant, 40 Kgs. of poppy husk has been recovered, therefore, same is to be held as non-commercial quantity. 4. A reliance has been placed on judgment of Honble the Apex Court in Basheer @ N.P. Basheer v. State of Kerala, 2004(1) RCR(Crl.) 1008 : 2004(2) Apex Criminal 454. Para 23 of Basheer @ N.P. Basheers case (supra) read as under :- "23. Thus, in our view, the Rubicon indicated by Parliament is the conclusion of the trial and pendency of appeal. In the cases of pending trials, and cases pending investigation, the trial is yet to conclude; hence, the retrospective mollification of the rigour of punishment has been made applicable. In the cases where the trials are concluded and appeals are pending, the application of the amended Act appears to have been excluded so as to preclude the possible contingency of reopening concluded trials. In our judgment, the classification is very much rational and based on clearly intelligible differentia, which has rational nexus with one of the objectives to be achieved by the classification. There is one exceptional situation, however, which may produce an anomalous result. If the trial had just concluded before 2.10.2001, but the appeal is filed after 2.10.2001, it cannot be said that the appeal was pending as on the date of the coming into force the Amending Act, and the amendment would be applicable even in such cases. The observations of this Court in Nallamillis case (supra) would apply to such a case. The possibility of such a fortuitous case would not be strong enough reason to attract the wrath of Article 14 and is constitutional consequences. Hence, we are unable to accept the contention that the proviso to Section 41 of the amending Act is hit by Article 14". 5. It will be necessary to examine this contention raised in the facts of the present case. 6. In the present case, recovery was effected on 17.4.2001. The judgment of conviction and sentence was pronounced on 25.10.2001 The amendment has been made on 2.10.2001. Appeal in the present case was fled on 17.11.2001. Therefore, the appellant will be entitled to the benefit of the amendment as per ratio of judgment of Honble the Apex Court rendered in Basheer @ N.P. Basheers case (supra). The judgment of conviction and sentence was pronounced on 25.10.2001 The amendment has been made on 2.10.2001. Appeal in the present case was fled on 17.11.2001. Therefore, the appellant will be entitled to the benefit of the amendment as per ratio of judgment of Honble the Apex Court rendered in Basheer @ N.P. Basheers case (supra). Therefore, the contraband recovered being non- commercial on the quantum of sentence, appellant is to be dealt with under Section 15(b) of the Act. Section 15(a) defines punishment for small quantity. Section 15 (b) defines punishment for quantity lesser than commercial quantity but greater than small quantity. Section 15(b) read as under :- "15(b) where the contravention involves quantity lesser than commercial quantity but greater than small quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years and with fine which may extent to one lakh rupees". 7. Therefore, the maximum punishment which can be awarded can extend to ten years. Therefore, appellant can be sentenced to imprisonment less than ten years also. 8. It has been urged before me that in the present case the appellant was arrested on 17.4.2001 and he has suffered protracted trial for eight years. 9. Therefore, sentence awarded upon the appellant for ten years is set aside. However, the appellant under Section .15(b) is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two & a half years and a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, the appellant shall further undergo three months rigorous imprisonment. 10. With the observations made above, the present petition is disposed off.