Default imprisonment under the NDPS Act reduced after poverty and proportionality factors justified a shorter term.

Default imprisonment for non-payment of fine under the NDPS Act may be reduced where mitigating circumstances justify proportionality. The Bombay HC noted that the appellant had already served the substantive sentence, claimed poverty, faced no specific rebuttal from the respondent, and had been assisted by legal aid counsel. Relying on prior decisions and the discretionary nature of default sentences, the Court found six months' simple imprisonment appropriate instead of one year each for offences under Section 20(b)(ii) and Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

---

---

Issues: Whether the default sentences imposed for the offences under Section 20(b)(ii) and Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 deserved reduction.

Analysis: The appellant had already undergone the substantive sentences, and the challenge was confined to the default imprisonment imposed for non-payment of fine. The Court considered the appellant's claim of poverty, the absence of specific dispute from the respondent, the fact that legal aid counsel had been appointed, and the guidance available from prior decisions where default sentences were reduced on similar mitigating circumstances. The Court also noted that imposition of a default sentence lies within judicial discretion and that the sentence should be proportionate to the circumstances of the case.

Conclusion: The default sentences were reduced from one year simple imprisonment to six months simple imprisonment each for the offences under Section 20(b)(ii) and Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, in favour of the appellant.

---