Charas conviction upheld, but sentence reduced as proportionality required moderation of both substantive and default imprisonment.

Evidence from Customs officers, supported by search, seizure, sampling and chemical examination, proved possession and transportation of charas in commercial quantity, and the confessional statement before Customs was treated as admissible and reliable. The conviction under Section 20(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act was upheld. However, because the incident was old, the appellant had remained in custody for a long period and had no adverse criminal history, the Court moderated punishment on proportionality grounds. The substantive sentence was reduced to 11 years and 6 months' rigorous imprisonment, and the default sentence for non-payment of fine was reduced to 6 months' rigorous imprisonment.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the conviction for possession and transportation of charas under the N.D.P.S. Act was sustainable on the evidence and the confessional statement recorded before Customs . (ii) Whether the substantive sentence and the default sentence for non-payment of fine required reduction.

Issue (i): Whether the conviction for possession and transportation of charas under the N.D.P.S. Act was sustainable on the evidence and the confessional statement recorded before Customs .

Analysis: The recovery was made by Customs officers, whose evidence was accepted as trustworthy. The search, seizure, sampling and chemical examination established that the recovered substance was charas in commercial quantity. The statement recorded before Customs officers was treated as admissible and reliable, and the prosecution evidence was found sufficient to prove possession and transportation of the contraband.

Conclusion: The conviction under Section 20(b)(ii) of the N.D.P.S. Act was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether the substantive sentence and the default sentence for non-payment of fine required reduction.

Analysis: The incident was old, the appellant had remained in custody for a long period, and there was no adverse criminal history on record. While the fine was maintained, the Court applied the principle that imprisonment in default of fine is not the substantive sentence and must be imposed with due regard to the nature of the offence, the circumstances of the offender, and proportionality. On that basis, the substantive term and the default term were moderated.

Conclusion: The substantive sentence was reduced to 11 years and 6 months rigorous imprisonment and the default sentence for non-payment of fine was reduced to 6 months rigorous imprisonment.

Final Conclusion: The conviction was affirmed, but the sentence was modified by reducing both the substantive term and the default imprisonment, so the appeal succeeded only to that limited extent.

Ratio Decidendi: A court may maintain the conviction while reducing sentence where the circumstances justify moderation, and imprisonment in default of fine is a penalty distinct from the substantive sentence and must be fixed with proportionality in mind.

---