2007 (10) TMI 554 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether a Court of law can order a convict to remain in jail in default of payment of fine? Held that - As the present case is under the NDPS Act and 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. Appeal partly allowed.conviction recorded and sentence imposed on the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years is confirmed. An order of payment of fine of rupees one lakh is also upheld. But an order that in default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for six months. To that extent, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed.

Issues Involved:
1. Conviction under Section 8 read with Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
2. Procedural compliance and evidentiary support for the conviction.
3. Legality of imposing imprisonment in default of payment of fine.
4. Appropriateness of the sentence imposed.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Conviction under Section 8 read with Section 18 of the NDPS Act:
The appellant was convicted for possessing 7 kilos and 60 grams of opium, violating Section 8 read with Section 18 of the NDPS Act. Both the trial court and the High Court confirmed this conviction, sentencing the appellant to ten years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of rupees one lakh, with an additional three years of rigorous imprisonment in default of payment of the fine.

2. Procedural compliance and evidentiary support:
The prosecution's case was based on the testimony of several witnesses, including ASI Gopal Singh (PW7), Modi Ram (PW4), and Abdul Wazim (PW8). The trial court found that all procedural requirements were met, including the recording of secret information and the subsequent search and seizure. The High Court also confirmed that the procedural requirements were complied with and upheld the trial court's findings. The Supreme Court found no infirmity in the lower courts' findings, affirming that the appellant was rightly convicted based on the evidence presented.

3. Legality of imposing imprisonment in default of payment of fine:
The appellant argued that there is no provision in the NDPS Act for imposing imprisonment in default of payment of fine. However, the Supreme Court clarified that even in the absence of an express provision, courts have the implicit power to impose such imprisonment under general criminal law principles, as reflected in Sections 63 to 70 of the IPC and Section 30 of the CrPC. The Court cited historical cases and statutory provisions to support this view, concluding that the power to impose imprisonment in default of fine is implicit and can be exercised unless expressly prohibited by the statute.

4. Appropriateness of the sentence imposed:
The appellant had already served nine years and six months of the ten-year substantive sentence. The Supreme Court considered the appellant's socio-economic background, noting that he was a poor carrier, it was his first offense, and he had a family to support. The Court acknowledged the legislative mandate of a minimum fine of rupees one lakh but found the additional three years of imprisonment in default of payment of the fine to be excessive. The Court reduced this additional imprisonment to six months, balancing the need for punishment with the appellant's inability to pay the fine due to poverty.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal, confirming the conviction and the ten-year substantive sentence, as well as the fine of rupees one lakh. However, it reduced the imprisonment in default of payment of the fine from three years to six months. The appellant was ordered to be released if he had already served the modified sentence, unless required in any other case.

← Previous Next →