Judgment J.R. Vora, J.—The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code as well as under Section 36(b) of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act against the judgment and order delivered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 2, Bharuch on 05.06.2007 in Special N.D.P.S. Case No. 4 of 2006 whereby the present appellant being accused of the said Special Case came to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of ten years and to pay fine of Rs. 1 Lakh. 2. As per the brief facts of case, Mr. K.V. Katara, Deputy Police Inspector, N.D.P.S. Cell, C.I.D Crime, Gujarat State, Gandhinagar on 25.05.2006 was in the town of Ankleshwar alongwith Police Officers, Police Constables alongwith narcotics kit, sealing instrument etc. and were on patrolling at about 10 a.m. At 11 a.m, Mr. Katara received a private information that the accused was trading in ganja at his residential house situated at Jin Bazaar of Village : Netrang. Under the captain-ship of Mr. Katara, police party came to Village : Netrang and by telephone, Superior Officer was informed. A raid was arranged in advance and at about 13.30 hours, all the officers came to Netrang outpost. The employees of police of Netrang outpost were taken as raiding party member and two panchas were called. At about 14.30 hours, a preliminary panchnama was prepared and police party came in Government vehicles near Jin Bazaar. All the Police Officers reached at the residential house of the accused at about 14.35 hou Rs. The accused was present at the house and he was informed about the prior information and about the search which was to be made. The residential premises of the accused was searched and in the said search, about 8 Kilogram of contraband ganja was found from the house of the accused. The said substance was analysed by Forensic Science Laboratory and according to their opinion, the substance which was seized, was ganja. A seizure panchnama was prepared. Ganja was then sealed and accused was arrested. Police Inspector Mr. Katara gave a complaint on behalf of the State at Valia Police Station. The investigation was handed over to one Police Inspector Mr. The said substance was analysed by Forensic Science Laboratory and according to their opinion, the substance which was seized, was ganja. A seizure panchnama was prepared. Ganja was then sealed and accused was arrested. Police Inspector Mr. Katara gave a complaint on behalf of the State at Valia Police Station. The investigation was handed over to one Police Inspector Mr. Bhagabhai Ranjitbhai and after investigation, ultimately, a charge-sheet came to be filed against the accused in the Court of learned Magistrate and the case was then transferred to the learned Special Judge. 3. The charge came to be framed against the accused by the trial Court vide Ex.6 on 15.06.2006 for the offence punishable under Sections 8(c) and 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act for illegal possession of ganja of 8 Kilograms. The accused pleaded not guilty and, therefore, the prosecution examined eleven witnesses and produced on record voluminous documentary evidence to prove its case. After the evidence was over, the statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code and all incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence against the accused were put to him and defence of the accused was that he belonged to Village : Desad, Taluka : Valia, he had no property at Village : Netrang and when he had been to Netrang to purchase household material, he was arrested by Mr. Katara where all the procedure of the panchnama etc. was fabricated by police at Netrang outpost. He also produced the certificate of Gram Panchayat, Desad. Thereafter, the learned trial Judge heard the prosecution as well as the defence and came to the above conclusion and hence, this appeal by the appellant against his conviction and sentence. 4. Learned advocate Ms. Sadhna Sagar for the appellant restricted her submissions for quantum of the sentence and appeal is not pressed on merits. It is submitted that the quantity of ganja which was recovered from the accused is 7 Kilograms and that may also not be pure ganja. It is submitted that now in Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, the sentencing policy has been decided by the Legislature according to the quantity of the substance found. The possession of small quantity of ganja would invite only six months punishment. It is submitted that now in Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, the sentencing policy has been decided by the Legislature according to the quantity of the substance found. The possession of small quantity of ganja would invite only six months punishment. It is submitted that in Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act for ganja, the small quantity is 1000 grams, while commercial quantity is 20 Kilograms. So in the present case, though the quantity found from the appellant - accused is more than the small quantity but much less than the commercial quantity where the punishment is provided by the Legislature for a term not less than ten years and fine which may be not less than Rs. 1 Lakh and may be enhanced, according to the case. It is submitted that no minimum punishment is prescribed for the ganja which is more than small quantity and less than commercial quantity. What is prescribed is the sentence of imprisonment which may extend to ten years and with fine which may extend to one Lakh of rupees. It is submitted that having regard to this fact and having regard to other facts i.e. individual circumstances of the accused that the accused is poor person coming from economically backward and weaker section of the society, he has no antecedent and he has family to maintain, for which he is the only bread earner, this is a fit case in which sentence be reduced, exercising the discretion of the Court. 5. As against that learned APP Mr. L. R. Pujari for the respondent - State contested the submission for reduction of sentence on the ground that though no minimum punishment is provided for the breach of Section 20(b)(ii)(B), but having regard to the fact that the accused was found in possession of ganja of the quantity of 7 Kilograms, he is required to be punished adequately and according to the gravity of the offence, it is submitted that, the sentence imposed by the Trial Court is sufficient in the facts and circumstances and does not require to be reduced. 6. Having heard rival contentions of learned advocates for the parties. We have to decide only issue of quantum of sentence awarded to the accused in this appeal. It is noticed that learned Trial Judge has erred in reading and interpreting the provisions of law as to punishment to the accused. 6. Having heard rival contentions of learned advocates for the parties. We have to decide only issue of quantum of sentence awarded to the accused in this appeal. It is noticed that learned Trial Judge has erred in reading and interpreting the provisions of law as to punishment to the accused. The learned Trial Judge has observed that for the breach of Section 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, minimum punishment is for ten years imprisonment and the fine of Rs. 1 Lakh. It was also observed by the Trial Court that the Trial Court had no jurisdiction to impose punishment less than the minimum prescribed by the provision of law and, therefore, the learned Trial Judge imposed the above mentioned sentence to the accused. 7. Going through the provision of Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, it is clear that by this provision, no minimum punishment is prescribed. It is only in Clause (c) for the commercial quantity, the minimum punishment is prescribed by the law. The learned Judge has misread the punishing provision. Section 20(b)(ii)(B) invites sentence of imprisonment which may extend to ten years and the fine which may also extend to one lakh rupees. Therefore, it is a discretion of the Court to impose the sentence for a term which may extend to ten years and with fine which may extend to one lakh of rupees. Be that as it may, but having regard to the facts of the case and having regard to the fact that now as consequences of Amending Act coming into force on 02.10.2001, sentencing structure in the quantity of offending material was small or commercial or something in between. When the offending material was something in between, punishing section confers discretion upon the Court to impose punishment i.e. sentence of imprisonment which may extend to ten years and fine which may also extend to one lakh rupees. When the principle of sentence, according to the gravity of the offence, is taken into consideration, the discretion vested in the Court should be exercised to make the provision meaningful. When the principle of sentence, according to the gravity of the offence, is taken into consideration, the discretion vested in the Court should be exercised to make the provision meaningful. Now having regard to the facts of the case that there are individual circumstances of the offender and when ganja to the extent of 7 Kilogram has been found, which is much lessor than the commercial quantity, which is 20 Kilograms, the purpose of justice would be served, if the sentence imposed upon the appellant - accused is reduced to the extent, which meets with the gravity of the offence. Appeal, therefore, to that extent is required to be allowed and the following final order is passed. The appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellant - accused by the trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii) (B) of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act is confirmed. Appeal is dismissed to that extent. At the same time, we reduce and modify the sentence awarded to the appellant - accused and to that extent appeal is partly allowed. Instead of rigorous imprisonment of ten years and to pay fine of Rs. 1 Lakh, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year as imposed by the trial Court is modified and reduced by us to rigorous imprisonment of five years and to pay fine of Rs. 25,000/-, in default, to undergo two months simple imprisonment. Thus, while confirming the conviction, we reduced the sentence of appellant - Surendrasinh Gemalsinh Jadav as aforesaid. It is directed that when as aforesaid sentence is served by the appellant - accused and then if he is not required to be detained for any other purpose, he be set to liberty. Remaining order of the trial Court in respect of muddamal etc. is not interfered with. Direct service is permitted.