JUDGMENT : Beingaggrieved by the judgment dated 13.08.2008 passed by Special Judge, Ratlam , in Special Case No. 17/2004 whereby the appellantwas convicted for an offence punishable under Section 8/18 of the N.D.P.S. Actwith imprisonment for a period of four years and fine of Rs .5,000/- and in default of depositing fine further sentence of one year each,the present appeal has been filed. 2.In short the case of the prosecution was that on 14.05.2004 aninformation was received by the Station Officer of the concerned policethat appellants are seated at Bus Stand along with Opium and are proceedingtowards Jawra in the Bus. It was alleged that afterobserving formalities the concerned Station Officer reached to the waiting roomof the concerned Bus Stand where he found the appellants. It was alleged thatupon search, the appellants were found in possession of Opium, the weight ofwhich was 2 kg and 1.500 kg. Which was found in possession ofappellant No. 1 Ramchandra and was found inpossession of appellant No. 2 Udayram . It wasalleged that the seized contraband were sent for examination to ForensicScience Laboratory (in short F.S.L). After receipt of the report that thecontraband was Opium and the appellants has committed offence under theprovisions of N.D.P.S. Act, hence challan was filed.After framing of the charges and recording of the evidence the appellants weresentenced for a period of four years with a fine of Rs .5,000/- each. 3.Learned counsel for the appellants submit that theappellants are not challenging the findings which were recorded by the TrialCourt and the sentence of four years as awarded by the learned Trial Court.Learned counsel submits that the learned Court below has further directed theappellants to deposit fine of Rs . 5,000/- each,failing which the appellants shall undergo further jail sentence of one year.The only prayer is for reduction of the fine of Rs .5,000/-. It is alleged that the appellants are in jail since 14.05.2004. Theappellants are having no source of income. Father of the appellant No. 1 isdeath bad. Learned counsel submits that the jail sentence of the appellants wassuspended by the learned Court below during the pendency of the trial. Total jail sentence which has been completed by the appellants isthree years 11 months. Appellants have no means to deposit the fine amount. 4.Learned counsel for the State submits that after due appreciation of evidence,learned Court below has found the offence proved against the appellants, whichrequires no interference. Total jail sentence which has been completed by the appellants isthree years 11 months. Appellants have no means to deposit the fine amount. 4.Learned counsel for the State submits that after due appreciation of evidence,learned Court below has found the offence proved against the appellants, whichrequires no interference. It is submitted that the appeal filed by theappellants be dismissed. - 5.Since the appellants are not challenging the findings relating to conviction ofappellants under Section 8/18 NDPS Act and also the sentence of four yearsawarded by the learned Trial Court, therefore the same is confirmed. 6. So faras imposition of fine of Rs . 5,000/- each and indefault the further jail sentence of 1 year each is concerned, in this regardthe Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Shantilal vs. State of M.P. reported in (2008) 1 SCC ( Cri .) Page 1, Hon'ble the Apex Court has observed that it is not only the power,but the duty of the Court to keep in view the nature of offence, circumstancesunder which it was committed, the probation of offender and other relevantconsiderations before ordering to suffer imprisonment in default of payment offine. Keeping in view the fact that the appellants have already completed thejail sentence of 3 years and 11 months approximately, the jail sentence is reducedas undergone. Upon depositing the fine of Rs . 500/-by each of the appellants, they shall be released forthwith.