JUDGMENT

1. The instant criminal Jail Appeal has been filed by the appellant-Raja @ Rajendra against the judgment dated 21.04.2009 passed by learned Special Judge, NDPS Act Cases, Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No. 33/2007, by which the trial court convicted the present appellant for the offence under Section 8/18(b) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and sentenced him to 12 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,20,000/-; in default of payment of fine to further undergo 3 years rigorous imprisonment.

2. Shri Ripudaman Singh, learned Amicus Curiae at the threshold argued that he does not challenge the order of the conviction, however, he submitted that the appellant is behind the bars since 03.04.2007 and he has already served the total sentence of 11 years 9 months out of the total sentence of 12 years. So he prayed that a lenient view should be taken and the sentence awarded to the appellant should be reduced to that of already undergone by him. Learned counsel further submitted that the fine imposed by the trial court, which is to the tune of Rs. 1,20,000/-, is excessive; and towards the default of payment of the fine also, a very harsh punishment of 3 years R.I. has been imposed upon the appellant. While placing reliance on the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in the case of Shahfjad Khan Maebub Khan Pathan v. State of Gujarat, reported in (2013) 1 SCC 570 , it was prayed that the quantum of sentence in lieu of default in payment of fine may also be reduced appropriately. No other ground was argued by the learned counsel for the appellant.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that there is neither any occasion to interfere with the sentence awarded to the accused appellant nor any compassion or sympathy is called for in the said case.

4. I have heard the rival contentions of the parties and have carefully gone through the record.

5. In view of the limited prayer made on behalf of the appellant, this Court need not go into the merits of the case and the conviction recorded by the learned trial court is hereby upheld.

6. As far as the sentence is concerned, the learned trial court has awarded a total punishment of 12 years RI and in default of payment of fine to undergo 3 years RI.

7. In the case of Shahfijad Khan Mahebub Khan Pathan (supra), Honble Supreme Court held as under:

"(8) Coming to the question of sentence, it is not in dispute that the appellants were charged for possession of brown sugar in the quantity of 500 grams which falls under the head "commercial quantity". As per the notification of the Government being No. SO.1055(E) dated 19.10.2001, it is necessary to consider the same in terms of Section 21(c) of the NDPS Act. The trial Judge, taking note of the fact that the appellants were carrying such commercial quantity of brown sugar to the State of Gujarat from the State of Madhya Pradesh, awarded RI for 15 years and also directed them to pay a fine of Rs. 1.5 lakhs each, in default, to further undergo RI for 3 years. For offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 21 and 29 of the NDPS Act, undoubtedly, the minimum sentence prescribed is 10 years which may extend to 20 years with fine. In this regard, it is useful to refer a decision of this Court in Balwinder Singh v. Asstt. Commr., Customs & Central Excise, (2005) 4 SCC 146. The appellant therein was convicted for offences punishable under Sections 18, 22, 23, 25, 28, 29 and 30 of the NDPS Act and Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the IPC). This Court, having regard to the facts and circumstances and taking note of the fact that the appellant therein was convicted for the said offences for the first time (emphasis supplied), while confirming the conviction, reduced the sentence from 14 years to 10 years for the offences under the NDPS Act and the IPC.

(9) It is projected before us that both the appellants are first time offenders and there is no p