VIRENDER SINGH, J.

1. Appellant Piara Singh stands convicted under Sec.18 of the narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short "the Act")vide impugned judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum -Special judge, Amritsar dated 9.9.2005 and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.15,000/-, in default thereof to further undergo R. I. for three months. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and sentence, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal.

2. Since there was a delay of 195 days in filing the instant appeal, criminal Misc. No.31528 of 2006 has been filed. Notice of motion on the said application was issued for today. Trial Court records were also ordered to be summoned.

3. Since I am disposing of the main appeal today itself, the aforesaid delay in filing the instant appeal has been condoned by me vide my separate order of even date.

4. As per the prosecution case, the recovery allegedly effected from the appellant was of 280 grams of opium when he was apprehended on 20.12.2002 by Balwant Singh ASI, who was present along with the other police officials on patrol duty in the area falling within the jurisdiction of police Station Valtoha, (District Amritsar ).

5. Since the learned counsel for the appellant is not assailing the impugned judgment on merits, I do not feel the necessity of entering into the details of the case. The short submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant at the time of the alleged recovery was of the age of 76 years. He at present is 80 years old. Learned counsel then contends that by now the appellant has undergone ten months of his substantive sentence. On account of his poverty, he could not file the instant appeal in time and, therefore, there is a delay of 195 days in filing the instant appeal. He then contends that the appellant is not a previous convict.

6. On the basis of the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel for the appellant prays for a lenient view with regard to the suspension of sentence on both the counts. Prayer is opposed by the learned State counsel.

7. Since the impugned judgment has not been assailed on merits, i, therefore, uphold the conviction of the appellant under Sec.18 of the act. However, I find substance in the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant with regard to the quantum of sentence. The title of the judgment also depicts the age of the appellant as 76 years. Generally, the age is taken from the charge. The occurrence relates to the year 2002. By now the appellant has attained 80 years. Admittedly, he is not a previous convict. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances, ends of justice would be adequately met, if the substantive sentence of two years as imposed upon the appellant by the learned trial court is reduced to one year and sentence of fine is also reduced to Rs.5,000/-. Ordered accordingly. Instant appeal stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. All concerned quarters be informed of the judgment.