JUDGMENT (Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., r/w 36-B of N.D.P.S Act, 1985 to set aside the conviction of the appellant in C.C.No.8 of 2012, dated 04.05.2018, by the learned Special Judge, I Additional Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under N.D.P.S Act, Chennai – 600 104, by allowing this appeal.) This appeal is filed against the order of the I Additional Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under N.D.P.S Act, Chennai, in and by which, the appellant is convicted for the offence under Section 8(c) read with Section 29(1), 8(c) r/w Section 21(c), 8(c) r/w Section 23(c) and Section 8(c) r/w Section 28 of the N.D.P.S Act to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- each in respect of the four counts and in default of payment of fine, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year each. 2. A complaint was filed by the complainant on allegation that one Srinivasan Krishnasamy, Manager, M/s. Aramex India Pvt. Ltd., informed that one lady, namely Seiluti of Mizoram, came to their office for one international consignment having the consignor name as Ms.Seiluti, No.25, G.S.T. Road, Ambal Nagar, Chennai, which was destined for Josephine Albort, South Australia, which was declared to have contained sarees, dress materials, lady-s foot wear and one trolley bag weighing about 9.500 kgs and since they had reasonable suspicion about the contents of the consignment, requested to take necessary action. Based on the information, the officers of the N.C.B reached the said M/s. Aramex India Pvt. Ltd., and requested one S.Sathishkumar and said Srinivasan Krishnasamy to be the witnesses for such proceedings conducted by them and upon examination of the consignment, they found that in the empty trolley bag, there was a wooden plank and upon examination of the wooden plank, it was noticed that there are two separate layers of wood pasted together and on separation of the two wooden planks, it was found that three brown colour polythene packets were pasted in between the two wooden planks. When the said packets were examined, it was found that white crystal powder of similar in nature is there in all the three packets and upon examination, it answered positive for Cocaine and Methamphetamine, Narcotic drugs, covered under N.D.P.S Act, weighing 200 gms. Therefore, after competing further investigation, the complaint was filed. When the said packets were examined, it was found that white crystal powder of similar in nature is there in all the three packets and upon examination, it answered positive for Cocaine and Methamphetamine, Narcotic drugs, covered under N.D.P.S Act, weighing 200 gms. Therefore, after competing further investigation, the complaint was filed. Upon the charges being framed, the appellant denied the charges and stood trial. The prosecution, thereafter, examined P.Ws.1 to 17 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-207 and also produced M.Os.1 to 42. Upon being questioned about the evidence on record and the incriminating circumstances, the appellant denied the same as false and thereafter, the Trial Court heard the learned Special Public Prosecutor and the learned Counsel for the appellant and upon appraisal of the entire evidence on record, found the appellant guilty as mentioned above and sentenced as aforesaid. Aggrieved by the same, the present Appeal is laid before this Court. 3. Heard Mr.M.S.Charles, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr.N.P.Kumar, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent. 4. When the matter came up for hearing, the learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that in this case, already, the appellant had undergone and completed the ten years Rigorous Imprisonment and is presently undergoing the default sentence for non-payment of fine and therefore, restricted his arguments only in respect of the default sentence alone. Even otherwise, on a perusal of the material records of this Case, this Court is of the view that the appellant has been rightly convicted by the Trial Court. The learned Counsel would submit that the appellant hails from North-East and has got no other person to help and she is absolutely in penury and is in jail for more than 10 years and therefore, she has absolutely no way, whatsoever, to pay the amount of Rs.4,00,000/- and therefore, imposition of fine was way beyond her capacity and therefore, prays that this Court should consider the default sentence, for non-payment of fine in view of the fact that she has undergone the substantive period of sentence. 5. The learned Counsel also relied upon the judgments of this Court in S.Edmand and Anr. Vs. State rep. By the Intelligence Officer, N.C.B, South Zonal Unit, Chennai (NCB F.No.48/1/08/2006-NCBMDS) (Crl.A.Nos.161 and 281 of 2014), N.Kandeepan and Anr. Vs. State rep. By the Intelligence Officer, N.C.B, South Zone, Chennai. (Crl.A.Nos.528 of 2013 and 552 of 2012), T.Udayachandran @ Ramesh Vs. 5. The learned Counsel also relied upon the judgments of this Court in S.Edmand and Anr. Vs. State rep. By the Intelligence Officer, N.C.B, South Zonal Unit, Chennai (NCB F.No.48/1/08/2006-NCBMDS) (Crl.A.Nos.161 and 281 of 2014), N.Kandeepan and Anr. Vs. State rep. By the Intelligence Officer, N.C.B, South Zone, Chennai. (Crl.A.Nos.528 of 2013 and 552 of 2012), T.Udayachandran @ Ramesh Vs. State rep. by the Intelligence Officer (CDJ 2012 MHC 1209), V.Vettichelvan Vs. Central rep. By the Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (CDJ 2009 MHC 5356), Rajapandi and Anr. Vs. State rep. By the Inspector of Police, Chennai (Crime No.91/12) (CDJ 2021 MHC 5821), Shahejadkhan Mahebubkhan Pathan Vs. State of Gujarat (AIR 2013 SC (Criminal) 61). 6. Per contra, Mr.N.P.Kumar, the learned Special Public Prosecutor, would submit that in view of the overwhelming evidence on record, the appellant has been rightly convicted by the Trial Court. He would further submit that the fine amount imposed in the case is Rs.1,00,000/- per count, which is the minimum fine amount and therefore, has been rightly imposed by the Court. Therefore, once the appellant is unable to pay the fine amount, she can very well be required to undergo the default sentence and in view of the nature of the offence involved by the appellant, there is no necessity to modify the order of default sentence. 7. I have considered the rival submissions made on behalf of either side and perused the material records of the case and also considered the above mentioned six judgments produced by the learned Counsel for the appellant. On a perusal of the said judgments, it would be clear that in respect to the default sentence, two factors, namely completion of the entire period of incarceration and the factum about the capacity to pay the fine amount, can be taken into account and can be appropriately reduced in appropriate cases. Therefore, considering the nature and circumstances of this case, I am of the view that since the appellant continued to be under incarceration even after the completion of 10 years, that would by itself demonstrate that she is unable to pay the fine amount. Therefore, considering the nature and circumstances of this case, I am of the view that since the appellant continued to be under incarceration even after the completion of 10 years, that would by itself demonstrate that she is unable to pay the fine amount. Considering the fact that the appellant is lady and that she is unable to pay the fine amount and that she has already completed 10 years of Rigorous Imprisonment, I am inclined to modify the default sentence alone from one year for each count to two months for each count. The appellant, therefore, shall undergo two months each for each count i.e., four counts consecutively one after the other. 8. The Criminal Appeal is partly allowed to the above extent, upon completion of the said period as indicated above, if the appellant is not required for any other case, the Superintendent, Central Prison, Special Prison for Women, Puzhal, Chennai is directed to release the appellant.