D. S. ZOTING, J. :- Heard Mr. R. M. Patwardhan, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr. S. G. Loney, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for Respondent. Rule. Heard forthwith by consent of parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner-prisoner is seeking direction that the sentence of one year imposed by the Court in default of payment of fine of Rs.l lac while recording conviction under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, the "NDPS Act") and confirmed in appeal in this Court, may be reduced to fifteen days. 3. Facts relevant for decision of this petition may be briefly stated as under :- Petitioner is convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Trial No.59 of 1996 for an offence punishable under Section 22 read with Section 8(c) of the NDPS Act and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1 lac, in default of payment of fine, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one year. The Sessions Court delivered the judgment on 24-9-1998. As against the conviction and sentence, the petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No.352 of 1998 before this Court. Appeal of the petitioner was dismissed on 28-2-2005 and conviction and sentence awarded by the Trial court came to be maintained. The conviction period of 10 years' imprisonment is over by 24-11-2005 and now the petitioner is undergoing further imprisonment for one year on account of his default in paying the fine amount of Rs. 1 lac. 4. Mr. Patwardhan, learned counsel for petitioner submits that there is no provision in the NDPS Act to impose a term of sentence in default of payment of fine and as such the Court erred in inflicting the sentence of one year in default of payment of fine of Rs. 1 lac and as such, the sentence of imprisonment awarded in default may be reduced to 15 days in the interest of justice. 5. As against this, Mr. 1 lac and as such, the sentence of imprisonment awarded in default may be reduced to 15 days in the interest of justice. 5. As against this, Mr. Loney, learned APP submits that the NDPS Act is a special Act and the offence as defined in Section 40 of the Indian Penal Code covers the offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code as well as under any special or local law and, therefore, in view of the provisions of Sections 40 and 64 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 30 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, though there is no specific provision under the NDPS Act for awarding sentence in default for payment of fine, the Court is competent to impose such sentence in view of the provisions of law referred to above. 6. We have gone through the relevant provisions of law referred to by the parties. No doubt, the argument as advanced by Mr. Patwardhan apparently appears attractive, but notwithstanding the fact that there is no provision in the NDPS Act for imposition of substantive sentence in default of payment of fine, we wee no substance in the arguments of Mr. Patwardhan. It is to be noted that the NDPS Act is a special Act. Section 41 of the Indian Penal Code defines "Special law" as under :- "41. "Special Law" - A "special law" is a law applicable to a particular subject." Section 40 of the Indian Penal Code defines the term "offence" as under :- "40. "Offence" - Except in the Chapters and sections mentioned in clauses 2 and 3 of this section, the word "offence" denotes a thing made punishable by this Code. In Chapter IV, Chapter VA and in the foIlowing sections, namely, sections 64, 65, 66, 67, 71, 109, 110, 112, 114, 115, 116, 117, 187, 194, 195, 203, 211, 213, 214, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 327, 328, 329, 330, 331, 347, 348, 388, 389 and 445, the words "offence" denotes a thing punishable under this Code or under any special or local law as hereinafter defined. And in Sections 141, 176, 177,201,202, 212, 216 and 441, the word "offence" has the same meaning when the thing punishable under the special or local law is punishable under such law with imprisonment for a term of six months or upwards, whether with or without fine." (emphasis supplied). 7. And in Sections 141, 176, 177,201,202, 212, 216 and 441, the word "offence" has the same meaning when the thing punishable under the special or local law is punishable under such law with imprisonment for a term of six months or upwards, whether with or without fine." (emphasis supplied). 7. A careful reading of the provisions of Section 40 of the Indian Penal Code makes it crystal clear that the effect of clause 2 of Section 40 is to make everything punishable under Special law as an offence within the meaning of the Indian Penal Code. The offences under the NDPS Act thus become offences under the Indian Penal Code as term "offence" in certain cases is extended to the things made punishable under any Special or Local law. As already pointed out, it is not disputed that the NDPS Act is a Special law and that what was alleged against the accused was an "offence". 8. Section 64 of the Indian Penal Code reads as under :- "64. Sentence of imprisonment for nonpayment of fine - In every case of an offence punishable with imprisonment as well as fine, in which the offender is sentenced to a fine, whether with or without imprisonment, and in every case of an offence punishable with imprisonment or fine, or with fine only, in which the offender is sentenced to a fine, it shall be competent to the Court which sentences such offender to direct by the sentence that; in default of payment of the fine, the offender shall suffer imprisonment for a certain term in which imprisonment shall be in excess of any other imprisonment to which he may have been sentenced or to which he may be liable under a commutation of a sentence." 9. It is also to be noted that as per Section 25 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, Sections 63 to 70 of the Indian Penal Code and the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the time being in force in relation to the issue and the execution of warrants for the levy of fines shall apply to all fines imposed under any Act, Regulation, rule or bye-law unless the Act, Regulation, rule or bye-law contains an express provision to the contrary. This indicates that unless another procedure is laid down in the Code of Criminal Procedure, Sections 63 to 70 of the Indian Penal Code are to be applied. Our view is fortified by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Bashiruddin Ashraf Vs. State of Bihar ( AIR 1957 SC 645 ). In the said case, while dealing with Section 65(1) of the Bihar Waqfs Act, 1947 the Apex Court pointed out that though Section 65 of the Act does not provide for any imprisonment in default of payment of fine, the sentence of 15 days' simple imprisonment in default of payment of fine of Rs.I00/- was valid under Section 33 of CLP.C. (Old Code) (S.30 of new code) read with Sections 40 and 67 of the Indian Penal Code. 10. Section 30 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as under :- "30. Sentence of imprisonment in default of fine. - (1) The Court of a Magistrate may award such term of imprisonment in default of payment of fine as is authorised by law: Provided that the term - (a) is not in excess of the powers of the Magistrate under Section 29; (b) shall not, where imprisonment has been awarded as part of the substantive sentence, exceed one-fourth of the term of imprisonment which the Magistrate is competent to inflict as punishment for the offence otherwise than an imprisonment in default of payment of the fine. (2) The imprisonment awarded under this section may be in addition to a substantive sentence of imprisonment for the maximum term awardable by the Magistrate under Section 29." 11. A conjoint reading of Section 30 of the Criminal Procedure Code, Section 40 and Section 64 of the Indian Penal Code makes the position clear that a sentence of imprisonment can be awarded in default of payment of fine even though no such imprisonment in default of the payment of fine is provided for by a local or a special statute and Sections 64, 67 of the Indian Penal Code which deal with imprisonment in default of the payment of fine apply not merely to the offences under the Indian Penal Code but also under the special and the local laws. 12. In view of this legal position, we find that the petition is devoid of any merit and it deserves to be dismissed. It is dismissed accordingly. 12. In view of this legal position, we find that the petition is devoid of any merit and it deserves to be dismissed. It is dismissed accordingly. Rule is discharged. Petition dismissed.