ORDER : Leave granted. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent. 3. The High Court after extracting the details of the case in the appeal, filed at the instance of the respondent, and after noting the period of imprisonment already undergone, namely, 2 years 8 months and 23 days took the view that since the quantity of poppy husk involved was only 25 kgs. which was less than the commercial quantity of 50 kgs., the imprisonment already undergone would be sufficient and the fine imposed by the Trial Court, namely Rs.1 Lac was also reduced to Rs. 10,000/-. 4. Under Section 15 (b) of the NDPS Act, 1985 it is provided as under:- "15. (b) where the contravention 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; or" 5. On a reading of the above sub clause what one can discern is not that if it is less than commercial quantity, the period of imprisonment or the fine can be, as a matter of routine, reduced within the period prescribed merely because the expression is used "may". Since the offence alleged and found proved against the respondent is smuggling of poppy husk, a contraband substance prohibited under the provisions of the NDPS Act, it is imperative that such an expression used "may" in the context in which it is used should be taken as "shall" and the imposition of punishment to be considered on that basis. 6. When we examined the correctness of the impugned order, we are convinced that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the punishment imposed against the respondent. 7. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order insofar as that part of the order by which the imprisonment and fine imposed on the respondent was interfered with and direct the High Court to examine the said aspect relating to the question of imposition of punishment and pass appropriate orders in tune with what is prescribed under Section 15 (b) of the NDPS Act. If for any reason the High Court still wants to consider any lesser punishment such consideration can be only by giving proper reasons befitting the case concerned and cannot be done in a mechanical manner as has been done by the High Court in the impugned order. 8. We order accordingly and the case is remitted beck to the High Court for passing appropriate orders on the question of punishment. 9. With the above observations and directions, the appeal stands disposed of.