ORDER : It is submitted by Mr. Dey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Manoj Prasad, learned Amicus Curiae defending the respondent, that there was no distinction between the small quantity and the commercial quantity as on 31.05.2001 when the seizure took place. According to the learned counsel, the amendment came into force on 02.10.2001 and, therefore, the High Court is right in modifying the sentence on the ground that the Morphine seized had not been proven to be used for commercial purpose. 2. Mr. Dey and Ms. Binu Tamta, learned counsel appearing for the Central Bureau of Investigation, submitted that the amended provision would apply to the cases which are pending for trial. That apart, it is also urged that the High Court has erred in putting the burden on the prosecution that it was obligatory on its part to prove that the Morphine seized was meant for commercial use and not for personal consumption. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further contend that it is the accused who was to satisfy the court that he was carrying such quantity which has to be considered as small quantity and that it was covered within the ambit and sweep of unamended provisions of Sections 27 and 32 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic substances Act, 1985. 3. Heard in Part. Put up for further hearing on 16.09.2015.