JUDGMENT : G.R. Udhwani, J. 1. The appellant - Sanjay Dhaneshwar Yadav, who was original accused No.2 in Sessions Case No.107 of 2007, and who was charged, tried and convicted amongst other accused and convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.9, City Civil & Sessions Court, Ahmedabad for the offences punishable under Section 8(c) and Section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Pshychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ( for short "NDPS Act") read with Section 20(ii)(b) of the Act, and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of six and half years and additional sentence of two months rigorous imprisonment in default of fine of Rs.50,000/- which was also imposed, is aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 20.3.2009 and is in appeal before this Court. 2. It is not necessary to go into detailed facts of the case as the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant were restricted to the sentence imposed upon the appellant even as the appellant has served out a sentence of five years and 11 months against the above sentence. It has been argued that the appellant is young person and he was allegedly found in possession of 19 kgs and 100 grams of ganja which is not a commercial quantity. He submitted that therefore there were extenuating circumstances as the accused is a youth; he had no antecedent and having served substantial sentence, the fine as well as the sentence may be reduced to one already undergone. Reliance was placed by learned counsel for the appellant on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ghasita Sahu v. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in (2008) 3 SCC 52 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court after noticing that the accused was in possession of the quantity less than the commercial quantity i.e. less than 20 kg, reduced the fine and sentence from five years to the one already undergone. 3. 3. Learned APP would submit that there are no extenuating circumstances to reduce the sentence in a case where the appellant was proved to be a contraband trafficker which is a serious offence against the society, and in fact, the State has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 1401 of 2009 for enhancement of the sentence, inter-alia against the appellant Sanjay Dhaneshwar Yadav, since inadequate sentence, looking to the gravity of the offence was imposed by the court below even as he was found guilty of the offences. In his submission the maximum sentence as contemplated under Section 20 of the Act was called for. 4. Having considered the facts and circumstances as to imposition of the sentence upon the appellant herein, it cannot be disputed that the appellant is a young boy, having no antecedent and admittedly the quantity of ganja with which he was found was below the commercial quantity. Section 8(c) of the Act reads as under: "No person shall .... 4. Having considered the facts and circumstances as to imposition of the sentence upon the appellant herein, it cannot be disputed that the appellant is a young boy, having no antecedent and admittedly the quantity of ganja with which he was found was below the commercial quantity. Section 8(c) of the Act reads as under: "No person shall .... (c) produce, manufacture, possess, sell, purchase, transport, warehouse, use, consume, import interstate, export interstate, import into India, export from India or tranship any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance." Section 20(b) of the Act reads as under: "Whoever, in contravention of any provisions of this Act or any rule or order made or condition of licence granted thereunder, (b) produces, manufactures, possesses, sells, purchases, transports, imports interstate, exports interstate or uses cannabis, shall be punishable [(i) where such contravention relates to clause (a) with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to one lakh rupees; and (ii) where such contravention relates to sub clause (b), (A) and involves small quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both; (B) and involves quantity lesser than commercial quantity but greater than small quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years and with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees; (C) and involves commercial quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to twenty years and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees but which may extend to two lakh rupees: Provided that the court may, for reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a fine exceeding two lakh rupees.]" 5. The charge against the appellant was that he possessed 19 kg and 100 gms of ganja for sale. Thus it was not alleged that he was either a producer or a manufacturer of ganja. The maximum sentence permissible under Section 20(b)(ii) (B) is ten years and fine up-to one lakh rupee. 6. The charge against the appellant was that he possessed 19 kg and 100 gms of ganja for sale. Thus it was not alleged that he was either a producer or a manufacturer of ganja. The maximum sentence permissible under Section 20(b)(ii) (B) is ten years and fine up-to one lakh rupee. 6. As to sentence, in the trial court, it was submitted that the appellant was a young boy, having no antecedent and was found in possession of quantity lesser than commercial, and it was pointed out that for possession of 175 kg of heroin and 39 kg of opium, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Balwinder Singh v. Assistant Commissioner, Customs and Central Excise, reported in 2006 Drugs Cases (Narcotics) 707 : (2005) 4 SCC 146 reduced the sentence of 14 years to 10 years. Other authorities were also relied upon for claiming leniency in the matter of imposition of sentence. However, the trial court did not deem it appropriate to show leniency on the facts urged before it. 7. In Ghasita Sahu (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 8 has made following observations: "However, it is pointed out by the learned counsel that the quantity of ganja was less than the commercial quantity though more than the small quantity and that the accused has all through been behind the bars after his arrest and he has almost completed four years in jail. Considering that the accused is a middle aged man and comes from a poor background as claimed by the counsel, we would chose to modify his punishment of five years to the sentence already undergone. We also reduce the amount of fine from Rs.20,000 to Rs.10,000 and in default of payment of fine the accused would undergo further period of rigorous imprisonment for six months. Barring this modification, the appeal is dismissed." 8. In Balwinder Singh (supra), the accused were found guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 18, 22, 23, 25, 28, 29 and 30 of the Act and were sentenced to 14 years of imprisonment. The Hon'ble Supreme Court reduced the sentence imposed upon one of the accused Trilokchand from 14 to 10 years after noticing that the accused was first time offender. 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court reduced the sentence imposed upon one of the accused Trilokchand from 14 to 10 years after noticing that the accused was first time offender. 9. Thus, there are instances of reduction of sentence and showing leniency in case of middle aged person/first time offender so that they can be rehabilitated in the society and are prevented from turning into a hardcore offender. 10. Thus, considering overall facts and circumstances discussed above, this is a fit case where the Court deems it appropriate to exercise judicial discretion considering the fact that the appellant has no antecedent and is a young boy and found in possession of less than commercial quantity of ganja, who has already undergone almost the sentence nearer to the full sentence and might have, by now repented for the offence, so as to offering a chance to rehabilitate and settling in the society. 11. In the result, Criminal Appeal No.1752 of 2009 is partly allowed and the sentence imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 19, City Civil & Sessions Court, Ahmedabad in Sessions Case No.107 of 2007 dated 20.3.2009 in so far as the accused No.2 - Sanjay Dhaneshwar Yadav is concerned, is modified to the sentence already undergone as also we reduce the fine to L 20,000/, and in default order the appellant to undergo an additional imprisonment of two months as ordered by the trial court. The appellant - original accused No.2 Sanjay Dhaneshwar Yadav shall be set at liberty forthwith on his paying the fine of L 20,000/- if not required in any other criminal case. Direct service is permitted. Appeal partly allowed.