SHANTI LAL versus STATE OF M.P.

Citation: [2007] 10 S.C.R. 727 · Decided: 08-10-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.K. THAKKER · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

SHANTI LAL 
A 
V. 
STATE OF M.P. 
OCTOBER 8, 2007 
[C.K. THAKKERAND ALTAMAS KABIR,JJ.] 
B 
-
_1_ 
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985: 
s. 8 r/w s.18-Punishment for contravention in relation to c 
opium-Accused caught carrying contraband opium-Sentence of ten 
years RI andfine of Rs. 1 lakh and in default of payment of fine further 
RI for 3 years imposed by trial court and confirmed by High Court-
HELD: Both the courts were right in convicting the accused and 
imposing the substantive sentence of 10 years RI and fine of Rs. 1 D 
lakh-However, considering the facts inter alia that accused was 
merely 'carrier' and a poor person unable to pay the fine, in default 
of payment of fine of Rs. l lakh accused shall undergo RI for six months 
instead of 3 years as ordered by trial court and confirmed by High 
Court. 
s. 18-Power of Court to impose imprisonment in default of 
payment of fine-HELD: Though s. 18 does not expressly provide for 
E 
an accused to remain in jail in default of payment of fine and under 
the provisions of the Act there is no express power in a court to order 
imprisonment in default of payment of fine, in absence of a provision p 
to the contrary, viz., that no order of imprisonment can be passed in 
default of payment of fine, such power is explicit and can always be 
exercised by a court administering criminal justice-Indian Penal 
Code, 1860-ss. 63-70-Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-s.30-
General Clauses Act, 1897-s. 25-Administration of Criminal Justice. G 
Criminal Law: 
Imprisonment in default of payment of fine-Nature of-HELD: 
727 
H 
728 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
-~ 
[2007] 10 S.C.R. 
-
A the term of imprisonment in default of payment of fine is not a 
sentence-It is a penalty which a person incurs on account of non-
payment of fine-Difference between penalty and sentence-
Explained. 
The appellant was caught carrying in a bag 7 kg. and 60 gms. 
B of contraband opium. The trial court convicted him u/s 8 read with 
s.18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, 
and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay 
a fine of rupees one lakh. In default of payment of fine he was ordered 
to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. The High Court 
C having confirmed the conviction and sentence, the appellant flied the 
instant appeal. 
Besides challenging the orders of the courts below on merits, 
it was contended for the appellant that there was no provision in the 
D Act to impose sentence in lieu of payment of fine and, therefore, no 
substantive sentence could have been imposed on the accused in 
default of payment of fine. Alternatively, it was pleaded that the 
appellant having undergone the substantive sentence of 10 years, 
and being a poor person unable to pay the fine, and merely a 'carrier' 
E of the contraband opium not belonging to him, taking a liberal view, 
the sentence of imprisonment in default of payment of fine may be 
set aside. 
Two questions were raised before the Court: Whether a court 
oflaw can order a convict to remain in jail in default of payment of 
F 
fine; and whether s.25 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and s.30 of 
the Code of Criminal Procedure would apply to special laws and 
offences committed by a person not covered by IPC. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
G 
HELD: 1.1. So far as the conviction recorded by the trial court 
H 
and confirmed by the High Court is concerned, the same does not 
suffer from any infirmity. Both the courts considered the depositions 
on oath of the prosecution witnesses and held that it was proved 
beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant-accused was found in 
SHANTILALv. STATE 
729 
possession of contraband opium weighing 7 kilos 60 grams. Both the A 
Courts have also held that all the procedural requirements had been 
complied with. The appellant-accused was not possessing on his 
person contraband opium, but it was recovered from a bag. Taking 
into account all the facts, both the courts were right in convicting 
the accused. [Para 12] [736-C-F] 
B 
1.2. As regards sentence, the appellant was carrying opium (7 
kilos and 60 grams) and his case was covered by Section 18 of the 
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Minimum 
sentence prescribed thereunder is rigorous imprisonment for ten 
years which had been imposed by both the Courts below which is C 
clearly in consonance with law. Hence, even that part of the order 
suffers from no infirmity and is 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.