JUDGMENT : S.P. Garg, J. 1. Parbhawati @ Khursida Khatun (A-1), Anita (A-2) and Shanti (A-3) challenge their conviction by a judgment dated 08.02.2007 of learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.88/2006 arising out of FIR No.409/2003 registered at Police Station Lahori Gate under Section 20 NDPS Act. By an order dated 20.02.2007 they were sentenced to undergo RI for 14 years with fine Rs.1 lac each and in default of payment of fine, they were directed to further undergo SI for one year each. 2. Allegations against A-1 to A-3 were that on 20.11.2003 at 01.05 P.M. at Peeli Kothi in front of Police Booth, Peeli Kothi, Delhi, they were found in possession of 3236 gram, 2884 gram and 3062 gram of charas respectively when they were travelling in a TSR bearing No.DL1RF 1300 with two children. After completion of investigation a charge-sheet was submitted against them for committing offences under Section 20 NDPS Act. The prosecution examined 11 witnesses. In their 313 statements, the appellants pleaded false implication. On appreciating the evidence and after considering the rival contentions of the parties, the Trial Court by the impugned judgment held all of them guilty for the offence mentioned previously and sentenced them. Being aggrieved, they have preferred the appeal. 3. During the course of arguments, Prabhawati @ Khurshida Khatoon (A-1) appeared before the court in person. Anita (A-2) and Shanti (A-3) were produced from jail pursuant to the issuance of production warrants. Ms.Saahila Lamba, Advocate from Legal Aid Cell, appeared on their behalf. She, on instructions from the appellants, stated at Bar that the appellants have opted not to challenge the findings of the Trial Court on conviction under Section 20 NDPS Act. She, however, prayed to take lenient view and to modify the sentence order as they have already remained in custody for more than nine years and are unable to pay fine due to poverty. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has no objection to consider the mitigating circumstances for modification of the sentence order. 4. Since the appellants (A-1 to A-3) have opted not to challenge their conviction under Section 20 NDPS Act and accept it voluntarily in the presence of overwhelming evidence, their conviction stands affirmed. 5. A-1’s Nominal Roll dated 07.02.2013 reveals that she has already spent nine years, two months and seventeen days in custody and is on regular bail since 07.02.2013. Since the appellants (A-1 to A-3) have opted not to challenge their conviction under Section 20 NDPS Act and accept it voluntarily in the presence of overwhelming evidence, their conviction stands affirmed. 5. A-1’s Nominal Roll dated 07.02.2013 reveals that she has already spent nine years, two months and seventeen days in custody and is on regular bail since 07.02.2013. She is not a previous convict and is not involved in any other criminal case. Her overall conduct in the jail is satisfactory. It is informed that she is aged about 45 years and has been abandoned by her husband. She has entered into a second marriage but is issue less and her parents have expired. She was suffering from jaundice in jail and had undergone operation for appendix. 6. A-2’s Nominal Roll dated 21.08.2013 shows that she has already undergone nine years, nine months and one day incarceration. She is not a previous convict and was never involved in any criminal case. Her overall jail conduct is satisfactory. It is disclosed that she is 35 years old and has two children aged 13 and 11 years. Her husband has abandoned her and her children are studying in a school in Noida. She is suffering from tuberculosis. 7. A-3’s nominal roll dated 22.08.2013 demonstrates that she has undergone nine years, nine months and one day incarceration as on 21.08.2013. She is not involved in any other criminal case and has clean antecedents. Her conduct in jail is satisfactory. She is 60 years old. Report dated 22.08.2013 reveals that she is K/C/O HOCM (Hypertophic obstructive cardiomyopathy) with mild MR with Dyspepsia with cholelithiasis. She has taken treatment from J/S Psychiary CJ-06 dispensary. She also visited Cardiology department on 26.07.2013. It is further stated that she is a widow and hails from Bihar. She had come to Delhi in search of her four year old son who went missing in Bihar but was unable to trace him. She has medical problem in her ribs and is suffering from stone in gall bladder. 8. In the case of ‘Shahejadkhan Mahebubkhan Pathan vs. State of Gujarat’, 2012 (10) SCALE 21 , decided on 05.10.2012, the Supreme Court reduced the sentence from 15 years to 10 years as the appellant therein had already served nearly 12 years in jail. The order on payment of fine of Rs. 8. In the case of ‘Shahejadkhan Mahebubkhan Pathan vs. State of Gujarat’, 2012 (10) SCALE 21 , decided on 05.10.2012, the Supreme Court reduced the sentence from 15 years to 10 years as the appellant therein had already served nearly 12 years in jail. The order on payment of fine of Rs. 1,50,000/- was upheld but default sentence was reduced from RI for 3 years to RI for 6 months. The appellant therein was found in possession of 500 grams of brown sugar and was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 8 (c), 21 and 29 of NDPS Act. The Division Bench of Gujarat High Court had dismissed the Crl.A.No.11 & 75/2002 vide order dated 08.07.2002. Number of other judgments have been shown and placed on record whereby similar relief was given in various cases by this Court. 9. Taking into consideration all the mitigating circumstances referred above qua A-1 to A-3 their sentence require modification. In the interest of justice, keeping in mind the peculiar facts of this case, the order on sentence is modified and the substantive sentence of the appellants (A-1 to A-3) under Section 20 NDPS Act is reduced to RI for 10 (Ten) years each. 10. Regarding fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- each, the appellants have expressed their inability to deposit the amount due to poverty. The amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- imposed by the Trial Court cannot be reduced. However, taking into consideration Section 30 of Cr.P.C. and the judgment of ‘Shahejadkhan Mahebubkhan Pathan vs. State of Gujarat’ (supra) where the default sentence was reduced from three years to six months, it is ordered that the appellant shall pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine they shall undergo SI for a period of three months each. 11. A-1 Prabhawati @ Khurshida Khatoon shall surrender before the Trial Court to serve the remainder period of sentence awarded to her by the Trial Court within a week. 12. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. Trial Court record be sent back forthwith. Copy of the order be sent to Superintendent Jail, Tihar.