Judgment : ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, .J. Appellant Bhola Singh has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 09.04.2003 passed by the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Judge, Special Court, Barnala, vide which he was convicted under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to ' as the Act- ) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of `20,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that on 11.04.1999, a police party headed by Sub- Inspector Nachhatar Singh along with other police officials was going from village Handiaya to village Khudi Kalan on a kachha path in connection with patrolling and search of suspects, on Government vehicle. When the police party reached in the area of village Handiaya, accused-appellant Bhola Singh was noticed coming from the opposite side of the police party on foot carrying an plastic bag on his head. On seeing the police party, Bhola Singh turned and started going towards the left side. On noticing the suspicious nature in which the accused was behaving, he was stopped and checked and from his possession 10 kg. of poppy-husk was recovered. The police completed the formalities. The accused was also told that he can get himself searched in presence of a Gazetted Officer. A consent memo was also prepared. Formal charge under Section 15/61/85 of the Act was framed against the accused to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution had examined PW2 Sub-Inspector Nachhatar Singh, Investigating Officer of the case, who proved the fact that 10 kg. of poppy-husk was recovered from the possession of the accused. Other official witnesses were also examined who proved the seals, the recovery of the contraband and the offer of search etc. 4. After going through the entire evidence, the learned trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 15 of the Act and sentenced him to undergo the sentence as observed in the opening paragraph of this order. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the quantity recovered from the appellant is non-commercial in nature as only 10 kg. of poppy-husk was recovered from the appellant and therefore, a lenient view be taken while sentencing the appellant. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the quantity recovered from the appellant is non-commercial in nature as only 10 kg. of poppy-husk was recovered from the appellant and therefore, a lenient view be taken while sentencing the appellant. Learned counsel further submits that the appellant does not challenge his conviction for being in possession of 10 kg. of poppy-husk. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has already undergone substantial period of sentence. The period already undergone by the appellant has not been ascertained by the counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Punjab. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on going through the entire evidence of the case, I am satisfied that the conviction of the appellant was just and proper. He was caught red handed with contraband and therefore, I uphold his conviction as recorded by the learned trial Court. 8. Coming to the point of sentence, I find that only 10 kg. of poppy husk, which is non-commercial in nature, had been recovered from the possession of accused. The quantity of contraband is very meager and thus the contraband seems to be for his personal consumption and not intended for sale. 9. In view of the above, while upholding the conviction of the appellant, I reduce the sentence awarded to the appellant by the trial Court to the one already undergone by him. Appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. Order accordingly.