JUGDMENT : Vijay Bishnoi, J. 1. This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of the appellant being aggrieved with the judgment dated 30.10.2010 passed by the Sessions Judge, NDPS Cases, Chittorgarh (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Sessions Case No.62/2007, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under : Offences Sentence awarded: 8/18 NDPS Act 15 years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further undergo 2 years' rigorous imprisonment. 8/25 NDPS Act 15 years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further undergo 2 years' rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that he is not challenging the findings of the trial court regarding conviction of the appellant for the aforesaid offences and is simply praying that the sentences of 15 years' rigorous imprisonment awarded to the appellant by the trial court for the aforesaid offences be reduced to the minimum sentence of 10 years' rigorous imprisonment. It is contended that the appellant is convicted for the aforesaid offences for the first time and no other criminal case was or is pending against the appellant. It is also contended that the appellant is in custody since 28.05.2007 and at present his age is about 77 years and, as such, he has already served a substantial part of sentence, out of the sentences awarded to him by the trial court. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has further prayed that the sentences of 2 years' rigorous imprisonment in default of payment of fine awarded to the appellant by the trial court for the aforesaid offences be also reduced. 4. In support of the above contentions, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Balwinder Singh v. Asstt. Commr. Customs and Central Excise, reported in 2005 SCC (Cri) 1092 and the decisions of this Court rendered in the cases of Bhagirath Ram v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2014(1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 117; Dinesh Kumar alias Daulat Ram v. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Appeal No.710/2004 decided on 16.03.2010) and Daulatsingh @ Gadu & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Appeal No.517/2010 decided on 10.05.2016). 5. v. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Appeal No.517/2010 decided on 10.05.2016). 5. Per contra, learned Special Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that the appellant is guilty of transporting huge quantity of opium and, therefore, the trial court has rightly sentenced him for 15 years' rigorous imprisonment for the aforesaid offences and the same are not liable to be reduced. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Special Public Prosecutor, perused the impugned judgment and record of the case. 6. Since, learned counsel for the appellant is not challenging the findings of the trial court, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 8/18 and 8/25 of NDPS Act, the said conviction of the appellant recorded by the trial court is maintained. 7. Now, the question before this Court is whether in the facts and circumstances of this case, sentences awarded to the appellant by the trial court are liable to be reduced or not. 8. In the case of Balwinder Singh (supra), where 175 kg. of heroin and 39 kg. of opium of foreign origin were recovered from one of the accused persons Tarlochan Singh, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has ordered as under :- "4. In this case, the appellant Tarlochan Singh was the driver of the vehicle DIL 3372. He was also in custody of vehicle PJA 8677. His statement was recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act. From his possession the articles of opium and heroin were recovered and in his statement he admitted that he knew about the presence of these drugs in the vehicle and about the transport of the drugs illegally from Ludhiana to Bombay. It is evident from the statement made by him that he committed the offences punishable under Sections 18, 21, 22, 23, 25, 29 and 30 of the NDPS Act. We find no reason to interfere with the conviction and sentence entered against the appellant Tarlochan Singh and the criminal appeal stands dismissed. We are told that the appellant was convicted of this offence for the first time. The sentence imposed on him was imprisonment for a period of 14 years. We find no reason to interfere with the conviction and sentence entered against the appellant Tarlochan Singh and the criminal appeal stands dismissed. We are told that the appellant was convicted of this offence for the first time. The sentence imposed on him was imprisonment for a period of 14 years. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, we reduce the sentence from 14 years to 10 years each for the offences under the NDPS Act and for the offence under Section 120-B IPC. The sentences shall run concurrently. The direction to pay fine is maintained, but the default sentences shall also run concurrently." 9. In the present case, the appellant is in custody since the date of his arrest i.e. 28.05.2007 and as per the letter of Superintendent, Central Jail, Udaipur dated 01.11.2014 addressed to the Government Advocate, Rajasthan High Court Jodhpur, the age of the appellant on 01.11.2014 was 74 years and up to 30.10.2014 he has served 7 years 5 months and 1 day's imprisonment, as such at present the age of the appellant is about 77 years. 10. Learned Special Public Prosecutor is not in a position to dispute the fact that the appellant is convicted for the first time for the aforesaid offences and no other criminal case was or is pending against the appellant. 11. Looking to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the ends of justice would be met if the sentences of imprisonment of appellant awarded by the trial court for the offences punishable under Sections 8/18 and 8/25 of NDPS Act are reduced from 15 years' rigorous imprisonment to minimum sentences of 10 years' rigorous imprisonment for each of the offence. 12. Consequently, this appeal is allowed in part. While maintaining the conviction of appellant - Nand Lal S/o Veni Ram recorded by the trial court for the offences punishable under Sections 8/18 and 8/25 of NDPS Act, his sentence is reduced from 15 years' rigorous imprisonment to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment for each of the offence. Both the sentences are ordered to run concurrently. 13. However, the fine imposed by the trial court is maintained but the sentences in default of payment of fine are reduced from 2 years' rigorous imprisonment to 3 months' rigorous imprisonment for each default. 14. Both the sentences are ordered to run concurrently. 13. However, the fine imposed by the trial court is maintained but the sentences in default of payment of fine are reduced from 2 years' rigorous imprisonment to 3 months' rigorous imprisonment for each default. 14. It is made clear that the default sentences will run consecutively.