Proportionality of default imprisonment under NDPS law led to reduced sentence while conviction and fine were upheld.

The Supreme Court sustained the conviction under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act where guilt was not seriously disputed and the prosecution material justified no interference. It held that the quantity involved attracted the prescribed minimum punishment, but the appellants' first-offender status and substantial custody justified reduction of sentence. The Court also clarified that imprisonment in default of payment of fine is distinct from the substantive sentence and must be proportionate to the offence and the offender's circumstances. Applying that principle, it reduced the substantive sentence to the statutory minimum and cut the default imprisonment as excessive, while maintaining the fine.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the conviction for offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 required interference; (ii) Whether the substantive sentence and the default sentence imposed on non-payment of fine required modification.

Issue (i): Whether the conviction for offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 required interference.

Analysis: The appellants did not seriously challenge the finding of guilt. The Court, on the basis of the prosecution material and the limited nature of the relief sought, found no reason to disturb the conviction.

Conclusion: The conviction was confirmed.

Issue (ii): Whether the substantive sentence and the default sentence imposed on non-payment of fine required modification.

Analysis: The quantity involved was a commercial quantity, attracting the prescribed minimum punishment. However, the appellants were first-time offenders and had already undergone substantial incarceration. The Court also held that imprisonment in default of payment of fine is a penalty distinct from substantive sentence, and that the Court must consider the nature of the offence, the offender's circumstances, and the proportionality of fine and default imprisonment. Applying these principles, the substantive sentence was reduced to the statutory minimum and the default imprisonment was found excessive.

Conclusion: The substantive sentence was reduced from 15 years to 10 years and the default sentence was reduced from 3 years to 6 months, while the fine was maintained.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded only to the extent of reduction of the substantive and default sentences, with the conviction and fine substantially sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Imprisonment in default of payment of fine is distinct from substantive punishment, and its duration must be proportionate to the offence and the offender's circumstances; where warranted, courts may reduce excessive default imprisonment while maintaining the conviction and fine.

---