1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 27.09.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.PALANIVELU Crl.Apl.(MD) No.243 of 2011 Sughail ... Appellant Vs. The Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Zonal Office, Trichy-8. ... Respondent Criminal appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code r/w 36-B of NDPS Act, 1985 to call for the records in C.C.No.136 of 2002 dated 30.08.2007 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge and Special Court for E.C. Act & NDPS Act, cases at Pudukkottai to set aside the same and allow this appeal. For Petitioner : Mr.T.K.Sampath For Respondent : Mr.C.Arul Vadivel @ Sekar Special Public Prosecutor JUDGMENT This Criminal appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code r/w 36-B of NDPS Act, 1985 to call for the records in C.C.No.136 of 2002 dated 30.08.2007 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge and Special Court for E.C. Act & NDPS Act, cases at Pudukkottai to set aside the same and allow this appeal. 2. The appellant has been charged under Sections 8(c) r/w Section 21(c) and 29 of NDPS Act and he was charged by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge and Special Court for E.C. & NDPS Act, cases, Pudukkottai and he was convicted under the said Sections and he was sentenced to undergo for ten years Rigorous Imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lakh only) and in default of fine amount, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months. 3. He has preferred this appeal challenging the conviction. However, when the matter was taken up for admission, the learned Counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant being the second accused has already undergone the substantive sentence of ten years and now on account of non payment of fine, he is in the process of undergoing the default sentence of six months rigorous https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 imprisonment. Hence, he has confined his arguments only with regard to the question of rejection of default sentence. 4. Heard Mr.T.K.Sampath, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr.C.Arul Vadivel @ Sekar appearing for the respondent. 5. The learned Counsel for the appellant would draw the attention of this Court by two unreported decisions of this Court where the default sentence has been reduced. In a decision in Crl.A.No.291 of 2010 dated 30.06.2010 rendered by K.N.Basha,J, while dealing with a similar matter, modified the default sentence of rigorous imprisonment of one year to that of one month. In yet another case in Crl.A.No.689 of 2008 dated 18.03.2010, S.Nagamuthu,J, reduced the default sentence to one month rigorous imprisonment against the rigorous imprisonment for one year default sentence. 6. As far as the present case is concerned, the appellant has undergone the substantive sentence of 10 years. It is stated that since he is in custody, his family members are put to hardships. 7. In view of the circumstances, this Court is of the view that the default sentence of six months Rigorous Imprisonment on account of non payment of fine, is reduced to one month. 8. With the above observations, the Criminal Appeal is disposed of as above. Sd/- Deputy Registrar (Writs) /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar To 1. The Additional District & Sessions Judge & Special Court for E.C. Act & NDPS Act cases, Pudukkottai. 2. The Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Zonal Office, Trichy-8. 3. The Jailor, Central Prison, Trichy – 20. +1 CC to Mr.C.Arul Vadivel @ Sekar, Advocate (SR.No.33423) Crl.Apl.(MD) No.243 of 2011 27.09.2011 gsr NSV/29.10.11/2P/5C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/