ORDER : Leave granted. On 30.08.2013, this Court issued notice in the petition preferred by Kalyan Singh confined to the quantum of sentence and fine. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants contend, that both the accused having been found guilty under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the 'NDPS Act'), were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years each, and were also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- each. In default of payment of fine, each of the accused was liable to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of two years. The above sentences imposed by the Special Sessions Judge, Pithoragrah on 30.01.2010 were re-affirmed in the impugned orders passed by the High Court on 04.05.2012 and 12.04.2013. 3. Insofar as the quantum of sentence is concerned, the submission of the learned counsel is limited to the consequential sentence imposed by the Courts below, on account of non-payment of the amount of fine required to be deposited. Insofar as the instant aspect of the matter is concerned, learned counsel for the appellants, in the first instance, placed reliance on the decision rendered by this Court in Sasikumar and another v. State of Kerala, (2013) 11 SCC 680 , and invited our attention to the following observations : "6. We would like to further observe that from the facts of the case it is evident that the appellants and the other accused in this case are not the real men behind the nefarious trade of illicit intoxicants in the State. From the quantity seized from the possession of the accused and the manner in which it was being carried, it is evident that the three accused were only small time operators in the illicit trade of arrack and though visible, they constitute the weakest link in the chain of illicit trade in arrack. In those circumstances, we think a further reduction of the sentence would be quite in order. We, accordingly, reduce the sentence of imprisonment from 18 months, as awarded by the High Court, to one year and further reduce the sentence in default of payment of fine from six months to fifteen days. 8. In those circumstances, we think a further reduction of the sentence would be quite in order. We, accordingly, reduce the sentence of imprisonment from 18 months, as awarded by the High Court, to one year and further reduce the sentence in default of payment of fine from six months to fifteen days. 8. Before parting with the record of the case, we would like to point out that Section 8(2) of the Abkari Act does not fix any upper limit for the fine but lays down that the fine shall not be less than Rs.1,00,000/-. Since the minimum amount of fine prescribed by the law is kept so high, the courts naturally give the default sentence of imprisonment for a substantially longer period. As noted above, the trial court has given the default sentence of one year which was reduced by the High Court to six months. We may note that in cases where poor people like the appellants who may only be the carrier of the arrack or who may be trying to eke out a living from the illegal trade are caught committing the offence, they are hardly in position to pay the fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and for them the default sentence becomes an additional period of incarceration. In a way, fixing the minimum fine at such a high amount, regardless of the countless possible variables in the commission of the offence under Section 8(1), leads to discrimination in favour of those convicts who have sufficient means to pay the fine and, thus, avoid any default imprisonment and the small fries for whom the default sentence would invariably mean an additional sentence of imprisonment. To our mind, it is desirable to leave the Court free in exercise of judicial discretion in the matter of imposition of fine. Additionally, reliance was placed on the decision rendered by this Court in Shahejadkhan Mahebubkhan Pathan v. State of Gujarat, (2013)1 SCC 570 , wherefrom, learned counsel for the appellants invited our attention to the following observations : 12. It is clear and reiterated that the term of imprisonment in default of payment of fine is not a sentence. To put it clear, it is a penalty which a person incurs on account of non-payment of fine. On the other hand, if modified or varied in part or whole in the judicial proceedings. It is clear and reiterated that the term of imprisonment in default of payment of fine is not a sentence. To put it clear, it is a penalty which a person incurs on account of non-payment of fine. On the other hand, if modified or varied in part or whole in the judicial proceedings. However, the imprisonment ordered in default of payment of fine stands on a different footing. When such default sentence is imposed, a person is required to undergo imprisonment either because he is unable to pay the amount of fine or refuses to pay such amount. Accordingly, he can always avoid to undergo imprisonment in default of payment of fine by paying such an amount. In such circumstances, we are of the view that it is the duty of the court to keep in view the nature of offence, circumstances in which it was committed, the position of the offender and other relevant considerations such as pecuniary circumstances of the accused person as to character and magnitude of the offence before ordering the offender to suffer imprisonment in default of payment of fine. The provisions of sections 63 to 70 IPC make it clear that an amount of fine should not be harsh or excessive. We also reiterate that where a substantial term of imprisonment is inflicted, an excessive fine should not be imposed except in exceptional cases." 4. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at the hands of the learned counsel for the appellants. We are of the view that no interference is called for insofar as the present controversy is concerned, on account of the admitted position that one of the appellants was found with 7.600 kg of cannabis, whereas the other appellant was found in possession of 4 kg of cannabis. 5. In Sasikumar's case(supra), this Court, while recording its observations, expressed the view that if the accused were small-time operators and were carrying illicit trade of arrack and the main offenders were others, a compassionate view needed be taken. In such circumstances, substantial fine should not be imposed. The afore-mentioned judgment was rendered under the provisions of the Excise Act. Stricto sensu therefore, the same would not be applicable to the present controversy. In such circumstances, substantial fine should not be imposed. The afore-mentioned judgment was rendered under the provisions of the Excise Act. Stricto sensu therefore, the same would not be applicable to the present controversy. Be that as it may, even if we were to extend the logic expressed by this Court in the afore-mentioned judgment, it would not be possible for us to pass a favourable order in case of the appellants, since they cannot be treated to be small-time operators. Collectively, they were carrying 11.6 kg of cannabis. 6. Insofar as the judgment rendered by this Court in Shahejadkhan Mahebubkhan Pathan's case(supra) is concerned, it was pointed out, that in determining the quantum of fine, the Court needed to take into consideration, the nature of offence and the circumstances in which it was committed. We are of the view that the NDPS Act postulates serious consequences of offences emerging out of the provisions of the said enactment. In the present controversy, as noticed hereinabove, 11.6 kg of cannabis was stated to be in possession of the accused at the time of their detention. We find no justification, therefore, even to extend the benefit of judgment rendered by this Court in Shahejadkhan Mahebubkhan Pathan's case(supra) to the appellants. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we find no justification to interfere with the impugned orders. The instant criminal appeals are accordingly dismissed.