JUDGMENT : N.V. ANJARIA, J. 1. The present appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 30.04.2011 of the learned Special Judge and 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara, in N.D.P.S. Case No. 4 of 2008, whereby the appellant-original accused No. 2 came to be convicted for the offence punishable under section 8(c) read with section 20(b)(ii)(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, (hereinafter referred to as ‘NDPS Act’ for short), and is sentenced to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 50,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year. 2. As per the prosecution case, upon secret information being received by the complainant, the Head Constable on duty, that one Shabbir @ Zolo Noor Mohammad Shaikh-accused No. 1 running a "Tea Kitli" at a place called Shantinivas Compound, behind Prudential Tower, Near Fateganj Circle, Vadodara, along-with his brother-the present appellant, was keeping contraband material and that both were selling the same. A raid was conducted, whereupon the contraband "ganja" of the quantity of 1699 grams was recovered from the house of original accused No. 1, whereat the appellant was also present and staying. The necessary procedure was carried out for seizing the material, and sampling the same. The trial was conducted and appellant-original accused Nos. 1 and 2 came to be convicted as per the impugned judgment and order. Since the quantity of contraband "ganja" recovered was more than small quantity and less than the commercial quantity prescribed under the Act, the offence committed by the appellant was punishable under section 20(b)(ii) of the Act. 3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Aftabhusen Ansari for the appellant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. L.R. Pujari for the respondent-State. 4. In the course of the hearing of the appeal, learned advocate for the appellant stated that he confines his challenge in this appeal to the sentence part only, and gives up the challenge to the conviction recorded by the court below. In view of the statement made by learned advocate for the appellant to limit the prayer on the aspect of sentence awarded only without challenging the conviction recorded, it is not necessary to go into the merits of conviction and to discuss the evidence on record. In view of the statement made by learned advocate for the appellant to limit the prayer on the aspect of sentence awarded only without challenging the conviction recorded, it is not necessary to go into the merits of conviction and to discuss the evidence on record. 4.1 In context of the prayer for reducing the sentence, learned advocate for the appellant submitted that out of total sentence of rigorous imprisonment for five years imposed on the appellant, he has already served more than four years of sentence. The said aspect was verified from the jail record produced by the learned A.P.P. It indicated that the appellant has served the sentence for total period of four years, six months and twelve days as on 30.01.2013. 5. Learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the appellant having already undergone virtually the entire sentence, except the default sentence, same may be reduced to one already undergone. He submitted that the appellant is a married person and has family responsibilities. He hails from poor strata of the society, submitted learned advocate for the appellant. As is evident from the prosecution case itself, he was working on a "Tea Kitli" which belongs to his brother-original accused no. 1. It was submitted that the appellant is the only person who can help the family, as his elder brother is also in jail. Learned advocate relied on a decision of the Apex Court in Ghasita Sahu vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2008) 3 SCC 52 to submit that the Apex Court modified the sentence in that case, where similar circumstances were obtaining, to one already undergone, which was almost four years in that case. 6. The prayer for modification of sentence from one imposed to one already undergone in the present case made by the learned advocate for the appellant has force. The applicant was 24 years of age at the time of offence. He has spent more than four years in jail, which were the prime years of his life. The appellant is a married person, and it was stated that he has two minor girl children. His father is not alive, and his elder brother is in jail. The appellant is the only helping hand in the family. He has spent more than four years in jail, which were the prime years of his life. The appellant is a married person, and it was stated that he has two minor girl children. His father is not alive, and his elder brother is in jail. The appellant is the only helping hand in the family. 6.1 Another aspect submitted by learned advocate was that the quantity of 1699 grams recovered from the appellant is less than commercial quantity prescribed under the notification issued under the N.D.P.S. Act. It was submitted that *when the quantity is less than commercial and more than small, commensurate it would be to reduce the punishment to already undergone. 7. Considering the above aspects and when the appellant has served nearly four years and six months out of total five years of sentence, it will be appropriate to modify the sentence of five years imposed in the impugned judgment to the sentence already undergone. Considering the aspect that the appellant is hailing from poor section of the society, the fine of Rs. 50,000/- shall stand reduced to Rs. 30,000/-. However, the default imprisonment shall stand the same as per the impugned judgment and order. The appellant shall have to undergo the default imprisonment in the event of his not paying the fine of Rs. 30,000/-. Only upon the aforesaid condition being satisfied, the appellant may be set at liberty, if he is not required to be detained for any other offence. The Appeal is allowed partly. Appeal partly allowed.