ORDER : Heard Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. A. Mariarputham, learned Advocate General for the State of Sikkim. 2. Leave granted. 3. The present appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 20th August, 2015, passed by the High Court of Sikkim at Gangtok in Criminal Appeal No.03 of 2015, by which the High Court has affirmed the conviction, as well as the order of sentence, under Clause (d) of Section 9 of the Sikkim Anti Drugs Act, 2006 (for short, 'the 2006 Act') read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and under Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 17 of the Sikkim Anti Drugs Rules, 2007, read with Section 14 of the 2006 Act and Section 34 IPC, before the court of Special Judge (SADA), South Sikkim at Namchi, in Sessions Trial (SADA) Case No.02 of 2014. 4. This Court on 14th December, 2015, had issued limited notice as regards quantum of sentence. Section 9(d) of the 2006 Act, reads as follows: "9(d) where the contravention involves a person using a mode of transport or any other form of conveyance, either inter-State or intra-State, such person shall be liable to imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years or with fine which may extent to one lakh rupees, or with both, and the vehicle as used, shall be liable to be seized and confiscated, which may be released on payment of twenty thousand rupees." 5. On a perusal of the aforesaid provision, it is vivid that there is no stipulation with regard to minimum substantive sentence. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the court has jurisdiction to impose fine only. We have been apprised that the appellant has already spent more than nine months in custody. 6. Regard being had to the age of the appellant and taking note of the fact that he has remained in the rehabilitation home, we reduce the sentence to one and half years. 7. With the aforesaid modification in the order of the High Court, the appeal stands disposed of.