Default imprisonment in narcotics sentencing reduced while conviction and substantive punishment remained unchanged.

In a narcotics conviction under Sections 21(c) and 23(c) read with Section 28 of the NDPS Act, the conviction and substantive imprisonment were maintained because they were not challenged and the minimum sentence could not be altered. On sentence, the court considered that the accused had substantially undergone the substantive term, had no prior criminal record, and was financially weak, and applied Section 30 CrPC to reduce only the default imprisonment for non-payment of fine. The default sentence was reduced from three months' simple imprisonment to one month each.

---

---

Issues: Whether the default sentence imposed for non-payment of fine in a narcotics conviction could be reduced while leaving the substantive sentence and conviction undisturbed.

Analysis: The conviction under Sections 21(c) and 23(c) read with Section 28 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 was not assailed and was accordingly affirmed. On sentence, the Court noted that the appellant had already undergone nearly the entire substantive term, had no prior criminal involvement, and was in poor financial condition. Relying on the sentencing approach reflected in the cited precedent and the power under Section 30 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Court held that while the minimum substantive imprisonment and fine could not be altered, the default imprisonment for non-payment of fine could be reduced.

Conclusion: The conviction was maintained, but the default sentence for non-payment of fine was reduced from three months' simple imprisonment to one month each.

---