ORDER : 1. Leave granted. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. This Court, on 27.11.2015, had passed the following order:- "Delay condoned. Issue notice, restricted to the legal propriety of imposing a sentence of imprisonment for ten years, in the event of default in the payment of the fine of Rs. 1.25 lakhs (Rupees one lakh twenty five thousand), returnable in four weeks." 4. We have reproduced the said order only to highlight that the notice was issued with regard to the default clause only. 5. In course of hearing, Mr. Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, learned counsel appearing for the State, we must appreciably state, has brought to the notice of this Court the judgment in Shantilal vs. State of M.P. (2007) 11 SCC 243 , wherein this Court has held thus :- "We are mindful and conscious that the present case is under the NDPS Act. Section 18 quoted above provides penalty for certain offences in relation to opium poppy and opium. Minimum fine contemplated by the said provision is rupees one lakh [fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees]. It is also true that the appellant has been ordered to undergo substantive sentence of rigorous imprisonment for ten years which is minimum. It is equally true that maximum sentence imposable on the appellant is twenty years. The learned counsel for the State again is right in submitting that clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 30, Cr.P.C. authorizes the Court to award imprisonment in default of payment of fine up to one-fourth term of imprisonment which the Court is competent to inflict as punishment for the offence. But considering the circumstances placed before us on behalf of the appellant-accused that he is very poor, he is merely a carrier, he has to maintain his family, it was his first offence, because of his poverty, he could not pay the heavy amount of fine (rupees one lakh) and if he is ordered to remain in jail even after the period of substantive sentence is over only because of his inability to pay fine, serious prejudice will be caused not only to him, but also to his family members who are innocent. We are, therefore, of the view that though an amount of payment of fine of rupees one lakh which is minimum as specified in Section 18 of the Act cannot be reduced in view of the legislative mandate, ends of justice would be met if we retain that part of the direction, but order that in default of payment of fine of rupees one lakh, the appellant shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months instead of three years as ordered by the trial court and confirmed by the High Court." 6. We respectfully agree with the said view. Accordingly, we modify the default clause by directing that in case the appellant fails to pay the fine amount of Rs. 1.25 Lakhs, he shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. 7. With the aforesaid modification, the appeal stands disposed of. 8. There shall be no order as to costs.