JUDGMENT Mr. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.: - The appellant has filed the present appeal against the judgment and order dated 7.1.2011 passed by Special Judge, Ferozepur, whereby he was convicted under Section 15(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short “the NDPS Act”) in FIR No.134 dated 4.8.2006 under Section 15(b) of the NDPS Act registered at Police Station Guru Har Sahai, and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. 2. According to the prosecution, the appellant was apprehended on 4.8.2006 and upon the search of the gunny bag being carried by him, 30 kgs. of poppy husk was recovered. 3. This appeal was admitted vide order dated 15.7.2011. Upon a prayer for suspension of sentence, notice was issued to the State of Punjab. However, after hearing learned counsel for the parties and with the consent of learned counsel, the main appeal itself is taken on Board. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has not challenged the judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court. However, he has submitted that the appellant is a first offender and is the sole bread winner of his family. He has been facing the agony of criminal prosecution for the last more than five years. The contraband recovered from him does not fall within the definition of commercial quantity. Moreover, out of the sentence of three years imposed upon him, he has already undergone a period of more than two years. Therefore, the remaining substantive sentence of imprisonment of the appellant be set aside. 5. Learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the appellant stating that the appellant was found in possession of 30 kgs. of poppy husk and, therefore, no leniency be shown to him in the matter of sentence. However, he has produced the custody certificate which indicates that as on 9.9.2011, the appellant had undergone an actual sentence of 1 year, 11 months and 16 days. It has also been mentioned therein that there is no other criminal case pending against him. Learned State counsel however, does not dispute the fact that no minimum sentence is prescribed under the provisions of the NDPS Act for violation Section 15(b) of the NDPS Act. 6. It has also been mentioned therein that there is no other criminal case pending against him. Learned State counsel however, does not dispute the fact that no minimum sentence is prescribed under the provisions of the NDPS Act for violation Section 15(b) of the NDPS Act. 6. Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, the Court is of the view that ends of justice would be best met if the substantive sentence of imprisonment of the appellant is reduced to that already undergone by him. 7. Resultantly, the conviction of the appellant under Section 15(b) of the NDPS Act is maintained. His substantive sentence of imprisonment is reduced to that already undergone by him. 8. But for the modification in the quantum of sentence of imprisonment, as indicated above, the appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. ----------------