JUDGMENT Mr. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.: (Oral) - Appellant-Suresh was nominated as an accused in a case FIR No.714 dated 09.11.1998 registered at Police Station City Rohtak under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Act’). The Additional Sessions Judge, Jhajjar on 25th August, 1999 had charged the appellant for the above said offence. The charge stated that on 9th November, 1998 at about 6.30 p.m. in the area of Jind-Rohtak Road, near Baba Balak Nath temple, falling within the jurisdiction of Police Station City Rohtak, the appellant was found in a conscious possession of 7 kgs of poppy husk without any licence or permit and thereby he committed an offence punishable under Section 15 of the Act. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 2. The Additional District Judge, Special Court, Rohtak having concluded the trial, vide his impugned judgment dated 24th August, 2002 held the appellant guilty of an offence punishable under Section 15(b) of the Act. Vide an order dated 27th August, 2002, the trial Judge sentenced the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. one lac, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 15(b) of the Act. 3. The prosecution, to prove guilt against the accused appellant, had examined nine witnesses. It has come in the evidence of ASI Maha Singh PW-8 that on 9th November, 1998 he was posted as ASI in CIA Staff, Rohtak. On that day, he along with HC Pawan Kumar PW-5 and other companion police officials was present at the T-point in village Sunderpur on patrol duty. At that time, the accused was spotted coming from the side of Mata Darwaja, Rohtak carrying a bag. On seeing the police party, the accused made an attempt to slip away, but on suspicion he was apprehended and on interrogation he disclosed his name, parentage and address. A notice under Section 50 of the Act was served upon him and he was given an option to get himself searched from a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. The accused stated that he may be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer. A notice under Section 50 of the Act was served upon him and he was given an option to get himself searched from a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. The accused stated that he may be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer. Then an intimation was sent on telephone, whereupon Raj Singh DSP Ballabgarh PW-6 arrived at the spot and a search was carried in his presence. As stated earlier, 7 (seven) kg of poppy husk was recovered from the accused. 100 gm of poppy husk was taken separately as a sample and was sent to the laboratory. 4. The testimonies of ASI Maha Singh PW-8, ASI Pawan Kumar PW-5 (who was then posted as a Head Constable) and DSP Raj Singh PW-6 prove search, seizure and recovery of the contraband article from the appellant. 5. The witnesses examined in defence have failed to cause any dent in the prosecution version. Thus, this Court will uphold the conviction of the appellant under Section 15(b) of the Act. 6. In ‘Basheer @ N.P. Basheer v. State of Kerala’ 2004(1) Recent Criminal Reports 1008, Hon’ble the Apex Court has observed 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 differntia, 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 Nallamilli’s case (supra) would apply to such a case. The observations of this Court in Nallamilli’s 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.” 7. After an amendment was brought under sub-clause vii(a) and xxiii(a) of Section 2 of the Act, a table has been made part of the Act which prescribes small quantity and commercial quantity. The entry at Sr. No.110 of the said table states the poppy straw upto 1 kg as a small quantity and 50 kg as a commercial quantity. It is not in doubt that 7 kg poppy husk has been recovered from the appellant, which is a noncommercial quantity. 8. Even though recovery has been effected on 09/11/1998, judgment was pronounced on 24/08/2002, and, appeal was filed on 12/09/2002. Thus, ratio of law laid in Basheer @ N.P. Basheer’s case (supra) apply. 9. Counsel for the State has placed on record an affidavit dated 3rd January, 2012 of Rajender Singh Siwach, Superintendent District Jail, Rohtak; wherein it is stated that the appellant has already undergone an actual sentence of 2 months and 22 days. Section 15(b) of the Act states that in case of recovery of a quantity lesser than the commercial quantity but greater than the small quantity, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment awarded upon a convict can be extended upto ten years and with a fine which may extend to one lakh rupees. 10. Nobody had caused appearance for the appellant on January 04, 2012 and today when case was called twice. 11. In the present case, a meager recovery of 7 kg poppy husk has been effected from the appellant. Furthermore, occurrence in this case pertains to the year 1998. The appellant is in the corridors of Court for the last more than 13 years. Taking into consideration sufferance of a protracted trial by the appellant as a mitigating circumstance and the quantity of poppy husk recovered, the sentence awarded upon him is reduced to the period already undergone, i.e. 2 months and 22 days. Furthermore, the sentence of fine is reduced from Rs.1.00 lakh to Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment whereof the appellant shall have to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. Furthermore, the sentence of fine is reduced from Rs.1.00 lakh to Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment whereof the appellant shall have to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. 12. With the modifications in sentence noticed above, present appeal is disposed of. ----------------