JUDGMENT 1. - The instant criminal is directed against the judgment dated 31.3.2004 passed by Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Pratapgarh in Special Sessions Case No.71/2000 whereby the trial Court convicted the accused appellant for offence under Section 8/18 of NDPS Act and passed sentence of 10 years RI along with fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo two years RI. 2. As per brief facts of the case, on 09.10.2000 at 6.00 p.m. the accused appellant was arrested under Sections 457 and 425 I.P.C. by the SHO, Police Station Dhamottar District Pratapgarh and in custody, an information was given by him under Section 27 of the Evidence Act that before six months along with other friends, opium was stolen by them and his share of opium was put by him under the tree of mango near Pipliya Kua, situated in agricultural field of his father in law Banshi Lal. Upon said information given by the accused appellant, 4 kilogram opium was recovered as per information given by the accused appellant and upon said recovery of opium after following the procedure laid down under Section 42 (2) of the NDPS Act sent the information to the Dy. Superintendent of Police, Pratapgarh and registered the FIR No.178/2000 at Police Station Rathanjana, District Pratapgarh. 3. After investigation, the SHO, Police Station, Rathanjana filed charge-sheet against accused appellant under Section 8/18 of NDPS Act. 4. The trial Judge after framing charge under Section 8/18 of NDPS Act commenced the trial and after recording evidence convicted the accused appellant for offence under Section 8/18 NDPS Act and passed the sentence as aforesaid. 5. At the threshold, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has served sentence for more than nine years, therefore, does not press his appeal on merit so far as conviction and sentence is concerned for offence under Section 8/18 NDPS Act but submits that the sentence of two years RI awarded to the appellant in default of payment of fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- may be reduced from two years RI to three months simple imprisonment. 6. 1,00,000/- may be reduced from two years RI to three months simple imprisonment. 6. In support of above prayer, learned counsel for the appellant invited the attention of this Court towards the judgment reported in 2011 (2) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 929 (Satpal Singh v. Union of India) in which while relying upon the judgment of this Court in case of Mahaveer Prasad v. State of Rajasthan passed in SB Criminal Appeal No.411/2003 decided on 4.1.2011 and in case of Dharmveer v. Central Narcotics Bureau , the coordinate Bench reduced the sentence of one year to three months' simple imprisonment in the event of default of payment of fine, therefore, it is prayed that in this case also while maintaining the conviction for offence under Section 8/18 of NDPS Act and sentence of 10 years, the sentence of two years RI in default of payment of fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- may be reduced from two years RI to three months' simple imprisonment. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the prayer and submits that the appellant is not challenging the conviction, therefore, the sentence of two years RI\ awarded by the trial Court in the event of default of payment of fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- cannot be reduced looking to the nature of the case. 8. Having considered the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant on sentence part and looking to the circumstances under which the alleged offence has been committed, the ends of justice will be met if the sentence in default of payment of fine is reduced from two years to four months for offence under Section 8/18 NDPS Act. 9. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed and the conviction of accused appellant for offence under Section 8/18 NDPS Act and punishment of 10 years RI imposed upon him is hereby maintained but the sentence of two years RI in default of payment of fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- is hereby reduced from two years RI to four months' simple imprisonment. The accused appellant is in jail and has served more than nine years of sentence, he would be released after serving out the remaining part of sentence as awarded above.Appeal partly allowed. *******