2011 (7) TMI 899 - HC - Indian Laws

Appeal is filed challenging only the sentences imposed on the appellant - The appellant was arrested on 24th December, 2000 and has been in custody/jail since then. There is no serious dispute that the appellant has undergone substantive period of imprisonment imposed on him by the N.D.P.S. Court - the only ground urged in support of the appeal is that in default sentences imposed on the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii) and 22 of The Act are excessive; the appellant is presently undergoing in default sentences and since the appellant is coming from poor family, he is not in a position to pay the fine amount of Rs.2 Lacs which has been imposed on the appellant - Held that this is a fit case in which in default sentences imposed on the appellant for the offences punishable under Section 20(b)(ii) and 22 of The Act deserve to be reduced from one year simple imprisonment to six months simple imprisonment each - Appeal is partly alloowed

Summary

Issues:
- Excessive default sentences imposed on the appellant for the offences under Sections 20(b)(ii) and 22 of The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
- Appellant's inability to pay the fine amount of Rs.2 Lacs due to coming from a poor family.
- Consideration of reducing the default sentences based on the appellant's circumstances.

Analysis:
The High Court of Bombay heard the appeal challenging the sentences imposed on the appellant under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The appellant had been convicted for offences under Section 20(b)(ii) and Section 22 of the Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years along with a fine of Rs.1 Lac for each offence, with default sentences of one year each in case of non-payment. The appellant, being in jail and unable to pay the fine due to coming from a poor family, sought a reduction in the default sentences. The Court noted that the appellant had already served a substantive period of imprisonment and considered the judgments in similar cases to support the reduction of default sentences.

In the case of Shanti Lal, the Supreme Court had reduced the default sentence for a poor appellant from three years to six months of rigorous imprisonment. Similarly, in the case of Ramesh Kumar, the Delhi High Court reduced the sentence based on the precedent set by Shanti Lal's case. The Court also referred to the case of Durand Didier, where the Supreme Court maintained the rigorous imprisonment but reduced the default sentence from one year to six months. The Court emphasized that the imposition of default sentences is discretionary, and in the present case, considering the appellant's claim of being from a poor family, the default sentences deserved reduction.

The Court found merit in the appellant's argument, especially considering the appellant's representation by an Advocate appointed under the Legal Aid Scheme and having already served a substantial sentence. Therefore, the Court decided to reduce the default sentences imposed on the appellant from one year to six months of simple imprisonment for both offences. Consequently, the appeal was partly allowed in favor of the appellant with no order as to costs.