Judgment :- 1. The criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant / sole accused, challenging the judgment of the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Special District Judge & Sessions Judge (EC Act and NDPS Cases), Madurai. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant / sole accused as well as the learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) appearing for the respondent. 3. As per the prosecution case, the appellant herein was arrayed as the sole accused on the ground that he was found in possession of 1.900 Kgs of heroin on 26.10.2001 at about 2.30 p.m., at the scene of occurrence. It has been further stated that based on the secret information received from the Deputy Superintendent of Police, NIBCID, Chenai, the respondent herein along with his party had made the search at the scene of occurrence, wherein the appellant / accused was found in possession of the said contraband and the same was seized from him as per procedure and the case was registered in S.C.No.188 of 2002 under Section 8(c) r/w.21(c) of NDPS Act and after the arrest, he was remanded to judicial custody. 4. In support of the prosecution case, P.W1 to P.W8 were examined, Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.16 were marked apart from marking the material objects, M.O.1 to 5. After the trial, the Court below found the appellant guilty of the alleged offence and accordingly, he was convicted under Section 8(c) r/w.21(c) of NDPS Act and sentenced to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/-and in default, to undergo a further period of one year rigorous imprisonment. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the appeal has been preferred by the appellant/sole accused. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that there are material contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, however, the appellant / accused was convicted and sentenced by the trial court. According to him, in respect of seizure of the alleged contraband from the appellant / accused, P.W5 has given two different versions and there is no other supporting evidence to show that the prosecution witnesses P.W7 was working at Madurai, on 26.10.2001, the date of the alleged occurrence and also submitted that the Court below has not considered the evidence properly to convict the appellant. However, learned counsel for the appellant pleaded that the appellant / accused has undergone more than the substantive sentence of 10 years imposed by the court below. In the said circumstances requested this Court to set him at liberty, in view of the fact that he has undergone the substantive sentence of more than 10 years imposed on him. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the appellant is a poor person, hence, he could not pay the fine amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and that there is no other case pending against the appellant. It was argued on the side of the appellant / accused that merely, he could not pay the fine amount, after completing the substantive sentence of 10 years, he is in prison. 6. Learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) appearing for the respondent has not disputed the fact that there is no other case pending against the appellant. Admittedly no similar case under the NDPS Act is pending against the appellant. In the said circumstances considering the fact that the appellant has undergone the entire period of substantive sentence, this Court has to decide this appeal based on the legality of the request as per earlier decisions rendered by this Court in similar matters, where the fine amount could not have been paid by the accused and undergoing only default sentence, after the substantive sentence. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant cited various earlier unreported decisions of this Court and argued that merely because fine amount could not be paid by the appellant / accused even after undergoing the entire substantive sentence of 10 years, he could not be detained on account of the default sentence. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the appellant relied upon few unreported Judgments of this Court in Crl.A.(MD).No.291 of 2010, dated 30.06.2010 rendered by K.N.Basha.J, and in Crl.A.(MD).No.689 of 2008, dated 18.03.2010 Judgment rendered by S.Nagamuth.J, it has been held that since the substantive sentence imposed was undergone by the appellant therein, it was sufficient to let the accused at liberty. 8. Learned Government Advocate has neither raised any tenable objection nor cited any contra decision, to justify that the accused could be kept in prison, since the fine amount could not be paid by the convicted accused, even after completing the substantive sentence of 10 years of rigorous imprisonment. 9. 8. Learned Government Advocate has neither raised any tenable objection nor cited any contra decision, to justify that the accused could be kept in prison, since the fine amount could not be paid by the convicted accused, even after completing the substantive sentence of 10 years of rigorous imprisonment. 9. It is not in dispute that the appellant has undergone the substantive sentence of 10 years RI and he is in prison even after ten years of RI, as he could not pay the fine amount. It is not the plea of the respondent that the appellant / accused has sufficient means but wantonly not paid the fine amount. As per Section 8 (c) read with Section 21 of NDPS Act, if the seized contraband is a commercial quantity, minimum sentence of 10 years RI has to be imposed with a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-. However, there is no minimum mandatory sentence in case, if the fine amount is not paid. I am of the view that detaining a convicted accused, who has undergone the substantive sentence of 10 years RI, on the ground that he could not pay the fine amount for another one year as default sentence is against Human Rights. Hence, in the light of the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the appellant and also on the facts and circumstances of the case, to meet the ends of justice, I find it just and reasonable to record that the period of the substantive sentence of 10 years of rigorous imprisonment already undergone by the appellant / accused is sufficient for directing the respondent to release the appellant / accused on completion of the substantive sentence. 10. In the result, while confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the Court below, in the light of the earlier decisions, the sentence is modified to the effect that the sentence already undergone by the appellant for the period of more than 10 years is treated as sufficient sentence for the default sentence on account of the non-payment of fine amount. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of directing the respondents to let the appellant / accused at liberty forthwith, if his detention is not required in connection with any other offence. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.