JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel.Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the quantity of opium seized from the appellant was 1.400 Kg. as against the commercial quantity of 2.50 Kg. and smack of 255 gms. was seized as against commercial quantity of 25C gms. 2. Though learned counsel initially raised the contention that pure quantity of heroin in the smack was less than 19.125 gms. as per the FSL report but in view of the Notification No. SO 2941 (E) dated 18.11.2009, which is reproduced below, by which the amendment in law was effected on 18.11.2009 to the effect tat the quantities mentioned in columns No. 5 and 6 of the Table of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 would be entire mixture or any solution and not just its pure drug content. "Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) NOTIFICATION New Delhi, 18.11.2009 S.O. No. 2941(E).-In exercise of the powers conferred by clauses (vii-a) and (xxiii-a) of Section 2 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985) the Central Government, hereby makes the following amendment in the Notification S.O. 1055 (E), dated 19.10.2001, namely In the Table at the end after Note 3, the following Note shall be inserted, namely : "(4) The quantities shown in column 5 and column 6 of the Table relating to the respective drugs shown in column 2 shall apply to the entire mixture or any solution or any one or more narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances of that particular drug in dosage form or isomers, esters, Others and salts of these drugs, including salts of esters, ethers and isomers, wherever existence of such substance is possible and not just its pure drug content." 3. This amendment was brought in to remove the defect pointed out by Supreme Court in the case of E. Micheal Raj v. Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau, 2008 Cr.L.R. (SC) 401 in which the Apex Court earlier held that it is only the actual content by weight of Narcotic Drug which was liable for determination whether it was a small quantity or commercial quantity. Therefore, in view of the amendment in law, learned counsel has not pressed this contention. Therefore, in view of the amendment in law, learned counsel has not pressed this contention. He, however, submitted that since the quantity of narcotic substance is only marginally higher in the case of Smack seized from the appellant and that the appellant was on bail during trial, the sentence awarded to him may be suspended during pendency of this appeal, as the final decision of appeal may take considerable time. 4. He also relied upon the decision of Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Gopal v. State, 1988 RCC 417 and in the case of Pappu v. State of Rajasthan, 2007 (1) R.Cr.D. (Raj.) 67 in which this Court held that where the sample of seized narcotic substance was sent to FSL of a particular quantity and FSL report shows some lesser quantity received by them for testing, the prosecution case can become doubtful in such cases. He submitted that in present case as against sample of 50 gms. sent to FSL, the FSL report Ex.48 shows that quantity of 39.816 gms. received for testing. 5. The appellant in the present case has been convicted for the offence under Section 18-C of N.D.P.S. Act and has been sentenced for 8 years R.I. with fine of Rs. 50,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one year R.I. by the learned Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Act Cases, Sriganganagar in Session lase No. 10/2007 vide judgment dated 14.1.2011. The appellant has suffered ncarceration for about six and a half months by now. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor, however, opposed the bail application. 7. Having considered the rival submissions and in view of the legal position as above, I feel it just and proper to suspend the sentence awarded to the present appellant. 8. Accordingly, this bail application is allowed and it" is ordered that the sentence passed by the learned Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Act Cases, Srigangangar n Sessions Case No. 10/2007 vide his judgment dated 14.1.2011 against the appellant, Gurdev Singh son of Pyara Singh, shall remain suspended till the final disposal of the criminal appeal provided he deposits the amount of fine of Rs. 250,000/- imposed by the learned trial Court and executes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- along with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 250,000/- imposed by the learned trial Court and executes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- along with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned trial Curt for his appearance in this Court on 28.4.2011 and whenever called upon to do so.Application allowed. *******