Conviction affirmed, but NDPS imprisonment reduced to two years considering custody and mitigating factors.

On 14 July 2024, police received secret information that two persons were transporting ganja on a motorcycle from Darbha towards Jagdalpur. The appellants were intercepted at Keshlur railway gate, and four packets containing ganja were allegedly recovered from two plastic buckets carried by them. The seized substance weighed 17.170 kg and was confirmed as ganja by the FSL report.

The appellants were prosecuted under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The Special Judge, NDPS Act, Bastar, convicted them and imposed four years’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of ₹40,000 each, with six months’ rigorous imprisonment in default. In appeal, the appellants did not challenge their conviction and sought reduction of sentence on the grounds that they were young, had no criminal antecedents, and had undergone substantial custody.

Whether the conviction of the appellants under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act was sustainable on the evidence, including the recovery and FSL report?

Whether, considering the quantity of contraband, the appellants’ age, absence of criminal antecedents, and period of custody, the sentence of four years’ rigorous imprisonment should be reduced?

Whether the period already spent in custody was liable to be set off against the modified sentence?

The Court applied Section 415(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the criminal appeal, and Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, which prescribes punishment for possession of cannabis/ganja involving an intermediate quantity.

The Court relied on the evidentiary value of the recovery proceedings, testimony of the police witnesses, and the FSL report confirming that the seized substance was ganja. In determining sentence, the Court considered the quantity involved, the appellants’ period of custody, their young age, and absence of prior criminal antecedents. The period of detention was directed to be set off against the sentence in accordance with Section 468 of the BNSS.

The Court independently examined the evidence despite the appellants’ decision not to press the appeal against conviction. The testimonies of the investigating and police witnesses, together with the FSL report confirming the seized substance as ganja, sufficiently established the prosecution case and supported the conviction under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act.

On sentencing, the Court treated the appellants’ youth, lack of criminal antecedents, and custody already undergone as mitigating circumstances. Although the recovered quantity was 17.170 kg, the Court found that continued detention for the full four-year term would serve no useful purpose and that the ends of justice would be met by reducing the custodial sentence to two years’ rigorous imprisonment. The fine and default sentence were not disturbed.

Their sentence of four years’ rigorous imprisonment was reduced to two years’ rigorous imprisonment, while the fine of ₹40,000 each and the corresponding default sentence were maintained. The custody undergone by the appellants was ordered to be set off against the modified sentence, with any remaining sentence to be served.