2016 (3) TMI 608 - HC - Customs

Court modifies sentence for heroin possession under NDPS Act, considers time served;

The court affirmed the appellant's conviction under Sections 21(c) & 29 of the NDPS Act for heroin possession. Despite the conviction being upheld, ... Seeking modification of sentence order - Concealment of drugs - Holding appellant guilty for committing offences punishable under Sections 21(c) & 29 of NDPS Act - Held that:- taking into consideration of Section 30 of Cr.P.C. and the judgment of Shahejadkhan Mahebubkhan Pathan vs. State of Gujarat [2012 (10) TMI 518 - SUPREME COURT], as the appellant had already undergone almost the entire substantive sentence awarded to her, the sentence order is modified to the extent that default sentence for non-payment of fine ₹ 1 lac each shall be SI for one month each under both the offences. - Decided partly in favour of appellant Issues:Challenge to the legality and correctness of the judgment, Conviction under Sections 21(c) & 29 of the NDPS Act, Modification of sentence order based on time served, Appellant's inability to pay the fine, Comparison with a similar case for sentence reduction, Application of Section 30 of Cr.P.C. for modifying default sentence for non-payment of fine.Analysis:The appellant filed an appeal to challenge the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, where she was convicted under Sections 21(c) & 29 of the NDPS Act for possessing heroin. The prosecution's case detailed the events leading to the appellant's arrest, including specific information received, a raid conducted, and the recovery of heroin packets from the vehicle she was in. The trial resulted in her conviction along with an associate.During the appeal, the appellant's counsel accepted the conviction but sought a modification of the sentence due to the time already served by the appellant. The court affirmed the conviction considering the overwhelming evidence. The appellant had been in custody for almost the entire substantive sentence awarded, showing good conduct and no involvement in other criminal activities.Referring to a similar case, where the Supreme Court reduced the sentence based on time served, the court modified the sentence order in this case. The substantive sentence of RI for ten years each under both charges couldn't be altered, but the default sentence for non-payment of the fine was reduced to simple imprisonment for one month each under both offenses.Applying Section 30 of the Cr.P.C. and the precedent set by the mentioned case, the court modified the default sentence for non-payment of the fine, while leaving the other terms of the sentence order unchanged. The appeal was disposed of accordingly, with instructions to send the trial court record back and inform the Superintendent Jail of the order.