JUDGMENT Awasthi, J.--1. This appeal under section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “The Code”) has been preferred against the judgment dated 18.11.2009 passed in Sessions Trial No. 04/2006, by Special Judge (Narcotics) Indore, whereby the appellant has been convicted for offence punishable under section 8/20(b)(ii)(C) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘the Act’) and sentenced to undergo 15 years R.I and to pay a fine of Rs. 1.50 lacs and in default further to suffer R.I for 2 ½ years. 2. The prosecution story in short is that on 30.12.2005, at about 9.45 pm, Shri R.S. Amb (PW8), S.H.O, Police-Station Sadar Bazaar, District Indore, received a secret information that appellant/accused Abdul Hamid, a resident of Bhopal is having 'charas' with him and he will reach Imili bazaar shortly. After complying with the necessary formalities, the police force reached Imili Bazaar Square. Later on, they found a person coming from Rambagh Square, who was having a bag in his hand. When the person was stopped and enquired about his name and whereabouts, he informed that his name is Abdul Hamid, resident of Bhopal. Thereafter, the appellant/accused was briefed about the secret information and on consent being given by the appellant/accused, search was carried out. During search, total quantity of 4.484 kgs of 'charas' was recovered from the bag of the appellant/accused. After completing necessary formalities police arrested the appellant and registered FIR at Crime No. 403/2005 under section 8/20 of 'the Act'. After due investigation, charge-sheet was filed. 3. Appellant/accused was charged for offence under section 8/20(c) read with section 31 of 'the Act'. He abjured his guilt and took a plea that he has been falsely implicated in the mater. During trial, the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses and has exhibited 27 documents in order to bring home the charges against the appellant/accused. Const. Manoj and Const. Ramprakash were examined as DW1 and DW2. Trial Court, on appreciation of the evidence adduced by the parties, pronounced the judgment on 18th November, 2009 and concluded that the appellant is liable to be convicted for commission of offence and sentenced him as stated herein-above. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the prosecution has not followed the mandatory provisions of sections 42(2), 50, 52(a) and 57 of 'the Act'. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the prosecution has not followed the mandatory provisions of sections 42(2), 50, 52(a) and 57 of 'the Act'. However, conviction of the appellant/accused is based on the wrong interpretation of law, thus such finding may be set aside. 5. After arguing for sometime, learned counsel has contended that the present appellant is in jail since 6.1.2006 and he has already undergone jail sentence of more than 12 years. Therefore, in view of decisions of Supreme Court in the case of Shantilal v. State of M.P., reported in 2008(1) JLJ 362 = (2007) 11 SCC 243 ; Shahejadkhan Mahebubkhan Pathan v. State of Gujarat, reported as 2013(1) SCC 570 ; Balwinder Singh v. Commissioner of Customs and Central Exicse, reported as (2005)4 SCC 146, the appellant be released after reducing his substantive jail sentence to the period already under gone and reducing the sentence of default clause on non-payment of fine amount, from two years to some lesser period. 6. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the applicant is an habitual offender and that looking to the commercial quantity of 'charas' the substantive jail sentence and the sentence awarded in lieu of the fine should not be reduced to a period already undergone and prays for dismissal of the present appeal. 7. We have gone through the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court and we are satisfied on going through the evidence that contraband article 'charas' i.e 4.484 Kgs., was recovered from the appellant which was in contravention of section 8/20 of 'the Act' and we find that no other view is possible to held that appellant is innocent. Accordingly, Special Judge, after appreciating and marshalling the oral evidence vis-a-vis to the documentary evidence came to the hold that charges are true and, therefore, the appellant/accused has rightly been convicted. Hence, the conviction of appellant/accused recorded by the trial Court for offence punishable under sections 8/20(b)(ii)(C) read with section 31 of 'the Act' are hereby affirmed. 8. So far as the question of sentence is concerned, the judgments of Balwinder Singh and Shantilal (supra), wherein the Hon'ble apex Court has reduced the sentence from 14 years to 10 year, the case of accused was first offender in the case of Balwinder Singh (supra) and the quantity of contraband was more than the quantity seized in the present case. 9. Considering the law laid down by the Hon'ble apex Court in the cited two judgments, and the facts and circumstances of the case, as the appellant has already suffered near about 12 years and 80 days jail sentence, his custodial sentence is reduced from 15 years R.I to 12 years and 2 months R.I. 10. Now coming to the next argument of appellant regarding default sentence, in lieu of the fine amount, it appears that trial Court has imposed fine of Rs.1.50 lacs, which is minimum prescribed in the aforesaid offence, and in default of payment, sentence of 2 years R.I has been directed. Considering the case of Shantilal (supra), in which the Hon'ble apex Court, after considering the provisions of sections 63 to 70 of IPC, section 30 of CrPC and relying upon various precedents of Hon'ble the apex Court and High Courts and also referring the commentary of Ratanlal and Dhirajlal observed in para 39 as under : “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 CrPC authorises 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 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 lac, 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.” 11. In view of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble apex Court, we hereby reduce the custodial sentence in default of payment of fine from 2 years R.I to 6 months R.I. 12. Resultantly, the present appeal filed by the appellant is hereby allowed in part. Conviction recorded by the trial Court is hereby affirmed and sentence imposed upon the appellant is hereby reduced as mentioned herein-above. The appellant is in jail. A copy of the judgment be sent to the trial Court along with record for information and compliance.