The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to reduce punishment based on the circumstances of the case, as supported by the provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act and relevant case law.

Abhai Kumar, J.

Heard Sri Ghanshyam Das, learned counsel for the appellants and the learned AGA for the State.

2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 13.10.2010 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No. 6, Ghaziabad, in Session Trial No. 283 of 2006 (State v. Gurubaksh) in Case Crime No. 796 of 2006 and in Session Trial No. 284 of 2006 (State v. Vikram) in Case Crime No. 797 of 2006, under Section 18/20 N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station Sihani Gate, District Ghaziabad, convicting the appellant Gurubaksh for twelve years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,20,000/- and in default in payment of fine to further undergo for two years additional simple imprisonment and convicting the appellant Vikram for 11 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,10,000/- and in default in payment of fine to further undergo for twenty months additional simple imprisonment.

3. During the course of argument appeal was not pressed on merit rather it is submitted that quantum of punishment that has been awarded by the trial court may be reduced to the minimum as follows:

1. Rigorous imprisonment to appellant Gurubaksh that has been awarded for 12 years and rigorous imprisonment awarded to the appellant Vikram for 11 years, may be reduced to 10 years; and

2. Additional simple imprisonment in default of payment of fine of Rs. 1,20,000/-, may be reduced from 2 years to appellant Gurubaksh and additional simple imprisonment in default of payment of fine of Rs. 1,10,000/-, to appellant Vikram, may be reduced from twenty months to six months. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that appellants are father and son and they have already undergone 10 years of rigorous imprisonment. It is further submitted that appellant Vikram who is son of Gurubaksh is the sole bread earner of the family. It is also submitted that there is no criminal history of the appellants and in case rebate as requested is granted, then they will not indulge themselves in any further illegal activities.

4. Learned AGA has opposed the prayer of the appellants.

5. The right of the court to reduce punishment has been discussed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Baldev Singh v. State of Haryana reported in 2015 (91) ACC 912.

6. It has been observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that in the said case occurrence was of the year 1990 and the appellant has suffered a protracted proceeding of about twenty five years and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the appellant was reduced from 12 years to 10 years.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in this case also incident took place in the year 2006 and since then, appellants are facing incarceration and are in jail for almost 10 years.

8. It is submitted by the learned counsel that without assigning any reason trial court awarded punishment more than the minimum prescribed. Learned counsel also submitted that provision of Section 32-B, can be taken into consideration for providing more punishment than the minimum that was also not considered. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that both the appellants are father and son and the contraband that was recovered from them was just higher than the minimum prescribed of the commercial quantity. It is submitted by the learned counsel that appellants were in jail from the date of incident i.e. 7.10.2006. Their bail was allowed on 24.11.2015 but bonds could not be filed immediately thereafter. Appellant Gurubaksh was finally released on 20.10.2016 whereas appellant Vikram is still in jail.

9. Hon'ble Apex Court in so many judgments have clearly stated that in such type of cases the punishment on default of payment of fine can be reduced. The leading judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in this regard is Shanti Lal v. State of M.P., reported in 2007 (Vol 11) SCC Page 243, in which issue/question as to whether the sentence on default of payment