[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.634 OF 2005 Martin Kwulire ] an Adult, Ugandan National ] Age about 40 years ] Occ: Business, at present ] lodged at Kolhapur Central ] Prison, Kolhapur ]..Appellant [Ori.Accused No.1] Vs. 1. The Intelligence Officer ] Narcotic Control Board, ] Mumbai. ] 2. The State of Maharashtra ]..Respondents .... Mr.Sayed Advocate for Appellant Mr.D.N.Salvi counsel for Respondent No.1 Mr.V.B.Konde-Deshmukh APP for Respondent-State .... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : APRIL 22, 2008 DATE : APRIL 22, 2008 DATE : APRIL 22, 2008 ORAL JUDGMENT: ORAL JUDGMENT: ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned counsel for the Respondent No.1- NCB and the learned APP for the State. 2. By judgment and order dated 13th May, 2005 passed in NDPS Special Case No. 145 of 1998, the learned Special Judge for Greater Bombay has [-2-] convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 8(c) read with Section 29 of the NDPS Act and he was sentenced to RI for ten years and fine of Rs.1 lakh in default RI for six months. The appellant was also convicted for the offence under Section 8(c) read with Section 21 of the NDPS Act and was sentenced to RI for ten years and fine of Rs.1 lakh in default further RI for six months. The appellant was also convicted for the offence under Section 8(c) read with Sections 23 and 28 of the NDPS Act and he was sentenced to RI for ten years and fine of Rs.1 lakh in default RI for six months. The learned Special Judge directed that all the substantive sentences shall run concurrently. 3. Mr.Sayed, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has not challenged his conviction or substantive sentence of imprisonment. He has submitted that the prayer of the appellant is only limited to reduction of in default sentence of imprisonment. Mr.Sayed has further submitted that the appellant has undergone the substantive sentence of imprisonment of ten years and the appellant has been sufficiently [-3-] punished. Hence, it is prayed that the in default sentence may be reduced. The learned counsel for the NCB has submitted that there is no objection to the in default sentence being reduced. 4. In view of the above, the conviction of the appellant on all counts is maintained. The substantive sentence of imprisonment and fine amount on the above counts, is maintained. However, in default sentence under Section 8(c) read with Section 29 of the NDPS Act is reduced from six months RI to fifteen days RI, in default sentence under Section 8(c) read with Section 21 of the NDPS Act is reduced from six months to fifteen days RI and in default sentence under Section 8(c) read with Sections 23 and 28 of the NDPS Act is reduced from six months RI to fifteen days RI. The appellant is on bail. He has already undergone 10 years and one and half month of imprisonment. Bail bonds of the appellant shall stand cancelled. The passport of the appellant be returned to him. 5. Appeal is partly allowed. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]