The court must consider the nature of the offence, the offender's circumstances, and the principles of sentencing in determining the appropriate period of imprisonment in default of payment of fine.

Sanjay Karol, J.

1. Appellant-convict Man Singh, hereinafter referred to as the accused, has assailed the judgment dated 16.1.2012, passed by Special Judge (Fast Track Court), Mandi, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, in Sessions Trial No. 80/2010, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Man Singh, whereby he stands convicted for having committed an offence punishable under the provisions of Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and pay fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and in default thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years.

2. The judgment stands assailed by the convict by taking several grounds in the appeal.

3. However, at the time of hearing Mr. Anup Chitkara, learned counsel for the appellant, confined the challenge only on the question of period of imprisonment, which the convict has to undergo, in the event of default of payment of fine by him. According to the learned counsel, convict is a poor man and cannot deposit fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-. As such, he wants the Court to reduce the period of imprisonment from two years. In support of his contention, learned counsel has referred to and relied upon Shahejadkhan Mahebubkhan Pathan vs. State of Gujarat, (2013) 1 SCC 570 and Shantilal vs. State of M.P. (2007) 11 SCC 243.

4. Despite limited submission, we ourselves, in order to ascertain as to whether judgment of conviction is within the settled parameters of law or not, minutely examined the record.

5. Having perused the testimony of witnesses of recovery of contraband substance from the conscious possession of the convict, we do not find any illegality, infirmity or error in the findings returned by the trial Court. On 25.10.2010 at 5 p.m. convict was found to be in possession of contraband substance i.e. cannabis weighing 6 kgs, in the shape of sticks. It was kept by the convict in a pithu bag. Recovery was effected by ASI Ram Lal, In-charge SIT Central Range, Mandi, alongwith other police officials, when they had laid a Naaka at Nihri Khaan. The convict was informed of his statutory rights. The contraband substance was weighed; samples drawn; sealed and seized by the police officials and thereafter deposited with the MHC who sent the samples for chemical analysis to the Forensic Science Laboratory. All papers of search, seizure and recovery were prepared in accordance with the settled principles of law. Report (Ex. PX) of the chemical analysis confirmed the recovered contraband substance to be charas.

6. We find factum of recovery also to have been brought to the notice of superior officer in accordance with law. FIR No. 146/10, dated 25.10.2010 (Ex.PW-11/C) was also registered promptly at Police Station, Gohar, District Mandi, on the basis of Rukka (Ex.PW-11/B). Seized sample and the remaining stuff were sealed and not tampered with at all. The sealed samples were opened only in the Laboratory at the time of conducting chemical analysis.

7. As such, prosecution has been able to establish recovery of charas, from the conscious possession of the convict, beyond reasonable doubt, by leading clear, cogent, consistent and convincing piece of evidence.

8. Coming back to the sole submission made by learned counsel, we are of the considered view that the Act itself provides minimum sentence of imprisonment and fine. We cannot find any infirmity with that part of the sentence, whereby convict is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and pay fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- for having committed an offence punishable under Section 20 of the Act. But however, finding favour with the submission of the learned counsel that convict, a poor person, perhaps may not be in a position to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- we reduce the sentence of imprisonment, which the convict is required to undergo in the event of default of payment of fine.

9. With profit, we