Proportional sentencing under NDPS law led to reduction of both substantive imprisonment and default term for fine.

In NDPS sentencing, the court treated the conviction as unchallenged and focused on proportionality of punishment. It reduced the substantive rigorous imprisonment from 15 years to 10 years, relying on the appellants' first-offender status, substantial incarceration already undergone, and comparable sentencing principles applied by the Supreme Court. It also held that imprisonment in default of payment of fine is distinct from the substantive sentence and must be fixed on relevant sentencing considerations, reducing the default term from two years' rigorous imprisonment to one year. The conviction was maintained and relief was limited to sentence modification.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the substantive sentence of rigorous imprisonment required reduction from 15 years to 10 years. (ii) Whether the sentence in default of payment of fine required reduction from two years' rigorous imprisonment to one year.

Issue (i): Whether the substantive sentence of rigorous imprisonment required reduction from 15 years to 10 years.

Analysis: The conviction was not challenged. The Court considered the limited prayer for sentence reduction and noted that the appellants were first-time offenders and had already undergone substantial incarceration. Relying on the sentencing approach applied by the Supreme Court in comparable NDPS matters, the Court treated 10 years as the appropriate minimum substantive sentence on the facts of the case.

Conclusion: The substantive sentence was reduced from 15 years' rigorous imprisonment to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment, in favour of the appellants.

Issue (ii): Whether the sentence in default of payment of fine required reduction from two years' rigorous imprisonment to one year.

Analysis: The Court treated imprisonment in default of payment of fine as distinct from the substantive sentence and applied the principle that such default imprisonment should be assessed having regard to the nature of the offence, the offender's circumstances, and the proportionality of the default term. On that basis, the Court found the default term of two years to be excessive in the facts before it.

Conclusion: The default sentence was reduced from two years' rigorous imprisonment to one year's rigorous imprisonment, in favour of the appellants.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was allowed only to the extent of sentence modification, while the conviction was maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: In sentencing under the NDPS Act, the Court may reduce the substantive and default sentences where the conviction is not in issue and the punishment is found disproportionate, particularly for a first-time offender; imprisonment in default of fine is a distinct penalty that must be fixed on relevant sentencing considerations and not mechanically linked to the main term.

---