Conviction under the NDPS Act confirmed, but default imprisonment reduced after considering custody period and jail conduct.

The conviction under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) read with Section 29 of the NDPS Act was left unchallenged on merits, so no interference was called for and the finding of guilt was confirmed. On sentence, the Court considered the period already undergone, satisfactory jail conduct, absence of previous conviction or other criminal involvement, and the sentencing principle under Section 30 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and reduced the default imprisonment from six months to two months while maintaining the fine.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the conviction under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) read with Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 deserved interference; (ii) Whether the default sentence required reduction.

Issue (i): Whether the conviction under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) read with Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 deserved interference.

Analysis: The appeal against conviction was not pressed on merits, and the finding of guilt recorded by the trial court was not challenged before the Court. In these circumstances, the conviction required no interference.

Conclusion: The conviction was affirmed.

Issue (ii): Whether the default sentence required reduction.

Analysis: The Court considered the period already undergone, the satisfactory jail conduct, the absence of any previous conviction or other criminal involvement, and the sentence already imposed, while also taking note of the relevant sentencing principle under Section 30 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Conclusion: The default sentence was reduced from six months to two months, while the fine was maintained.

Final Conclusion: The conviction stood confirmed, but the sentence was modified only to the extent of reducing the default imprisonment.

---