https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217580 The Supreme Court sustained the conviction under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act where guilt was not seriously disputed and the prosecution material justified no interference. It held that the quantity involved attracted the prescribed minimum punishment, but the appellants' first-offender status and substantial custody justified reduction of sentence. The Court also clarified that imprisonment in default of payment of fine is distinct from the substantive sentence and must be proportionate to the offence and the offender's circumstances. Applying that principle, it reduced the substantive sentence to the statutory minimum and cut the default imprisonment as excessive, while maintaining the fine. en-us Fri, 05 Oct 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 25 Sep 2017 12:15:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217580 The Supreme Court sustained the conviction under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act where guilt was not seriously disputed and the prosecution material justified no interference. It held that the quantity involved attracted the prescribed minimum punishment, but the appellants' first-offender status and substantial custody justified reduction of sentence. The Court also clarified that imprisonment in default of payment of fine is distinct from the substantive sentence and must be proportionate to the offence and the offender's circumstances. Applying that principle, it reduced the substantive sentence to the statutory minimum and cut the default imprisonment as excessive, while maintaining the fine. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 05 Oct 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217580