Default imprisonment under the NDPS Act may be reduced for age, poverty and clean antecedents, while conviction remains intact.

Imprisonment in default of payment of fine is distinct from the substantive sentence, and while the statutory fine under the NDPS Act could not be reduced, the court could consider age, poverty, family circumstances and criminal antecedents when fixing the default term. As the appellant was nearly 70 years old, came from a poor background, had no prior criminal history and no adverse circumstance was shown by the prosecution, interference was confined to the default clause. The default imprisonment was reduced from one year to one month, while the conviction and substantive sentence were left intact.

---

---

Issues: Whether the period of imprisonment in default of payment of fine imposed for conviction under the NDPS Act should be reduced in view of the appellant's advanced age, poverty, and absence of criminal antecedents.

Analysis: The conviction and substantive sentence were not assailed on merits; the challenge was confined to the default clause. The Court relied on the principle that imprisonment in default of payment of fine is distinct from substantive punishment and that, while the statutory minimum fine cannot be reduced, the court may consider the offender's financial condition, age, family circumstances, and criminal history while fixing the default term. In the present case, the appellant was nearly 70 years old, belonged to a poor background, had no prior criminal history, and the prosecution did not point to any adverse circumstance against him. These mitigating factors justified interference with only the default portion of the sentence.

Conclusion: The default imprisonment was reduced from one year to one month, while the conviction and substantive sentence were maintained.

---