JUDGMENT A.N. Jindal, J.: - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 15.1.2002 passed by the Presiding Officer, Special Court, Kurukshetra, convicting and sentencing the accused-appellant (herein referred as, ‘the accused’) to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/- under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity, ‘the Act’). 2. In nutshell, the allegations are that on 14.9.1998, ASI Pawan Kumar along with other police officials was present at Barara Chowk, where he received a secret information and V.T. message from SI/SHO Puran Chand that the accused having charas in his possession was coming from the Ambala side on foot and if raid is conducted, he could be apprehended with the contraband. Believing the secret information to be reliable, ASI Pawan Kumar along with other police officials held picket at Barara Chowk. After some time, the accused was seen coming on foot from the side of Barara and on seeing the police party he turned back and started moving briskly. The accused was apprehended. Thereafter, notice (Ex.PF) under Section 50 of the Act was served upon him as to “whether he wanted to get himself searched from a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate”. The accused vide his reply Ex.PF/1 opted to get himself search from a Magistrate. Thereafter, ASI Pawan Kumar produced the accused along with other witnesses before Jail Kumar Verma, Tehsildar in his office. On search, he was found in possession of one kilogram charas. Out of the total, 100 grams was separated as sample. The sample as well as the remaining charas were sealed with the seal bearing impression “JK”. Ruqa Ex.PD was sent to the police station on the basis of which formal FIR Ex.PD/1 was registered. On completion of the investigation and on receipt of the report of the Chemical Examiner Ex.PJ, challan against the accused was presented in the court. 3. The accused was charged under Section 20 of the Act to which he pleaded not guilty and opted to contest. 4. In order to substantiate the charge, the prosecution examined Jai Kumar Verma Tehsildar (PW1), HC Parveen Kumar (PW2), C. Prem Chand (PW3), ASI Maya Ram (PW4), Jasmer Singh (PW5), SI Puran Singh (PW6) and ASI Pawan Kumar (PW7). 5. The accused was charged under Section 20 of the Act to which he pleaded not guilty and opted to contest. 4. In order to substantiate the charge, the prosecution examined Jai Kumar Verma Tehsildar (PW1), HC Parveen Kumar (PW2), C. Prem Chand (PW3), ASI Maya Ram (PW4), Jasmer Singh (PW5), SI Puran Singh (PW6) and ASI Pawan Kumar (PW7). 5. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and pleaded his false implication in the case. In defence, he examined Sadha Singh (DW1) and Kartar Singh (DW2). 6. The trial resulted into conviction. 7. None appeared on behalf of the appellant to assist the court despite number of opportunities given, as such, I am left with no option but to decide the case with the assistance of Mr. J.S. Rattu, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. 8. The evidence in this case appears to have been appreciated in the right perspective. The accused is proved to be in conscious possession of one kilogram charas. 9. Now coming to the quantum of sentence, needless to say that in the table provided in the Act, the commercial quantity of Charas has been recorded as one kilogram. However, Section 2 (viia) of the Act describes as to which is the commercial quantity, which reads as under :- “2 (viia): “Commercial quantity”, in relation to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, means any quantity greater than the quantity specified by the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette.” 10. According to the aforesaid provisions, the non-commercial quantity could not be 999 grams and commercial quantity could certainly be above one kilogram. The Hon’ble Full Bench of Himachal Pradesh High Court in case Ratto v. State of H.P. 2004 (1) RCR (Criminal) 501 observed as under :- “19. In our considered view quantity greater than, has to be given its simple and grammatical meaning. Reason is that there is no ambiguity in these words. Nor they can be given any other meaning than the one as are understood in the common parlance. We further feel that these words are not capable of being interpreted-in any other manner except that commercial quantity as notified by the Central Government has to be greater than or to say more than/bigger than/larger than one kg.” 20. Nor they can be given any other meaning than the one as are understood in the common parlance. We further feel that these words are not capable of being interpreted-in any other manner except that commercial quantity as notified by the Central Government has to be greater than or to say more than/bigger than/larger than one kg.” 20. For holding so, we are of the view that the legislature was well aware when the words “greater than” were incorporated in the sub-section as also about its meaning. There can hardly be any other purpose, import or meaning that can be attributed to the words “quantity greater than” used in the aforesaid sub-section. Thus, there is no ambiguity while examining this provision of law. 11. The Hon’ble Full Bench of Himachal Pradesh High Court in Ratto’s case (supra), while concluding, observed that, “at the same time, while answering this reference, it is held that in order to be the “commercial quantity” as defined in Section 2 (viia) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 as amended by Central Act of 2001, it has always to be more than/greater than/bigger than one kg”. 12. In the instant case also, the accused was found in possession of one kilogram of charas which is certainly a non commercial quantity. The accused has already undergone five years, one month and 28 days of the substantive sentence. As such, I deem it a fit case where some leniency could be extended to the accused. 13. In the wake of the aforesaid discussions, this appeal is dismissed with the modification in the sentence which is reduced to five years and two months. The sentence of fine is reduced to Rs.10,000/-. However, in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra for compliance. —————————