Conviction for intermediate quantity cannabis possession affirmed with sentence reduced to period already undergone.

On July 5, 2017, police received secret information that the appellant was waiting at Lachanpur Square with two bags of contraband

Upon search, 10.00 kg of ganja (cannabis) was seized

Following investigation, the Special Judge (NDPS Act), Janjgir-Champa, convicted the appellant on February 28, 2018, sentencing him to three years of Rigorous Imprisonment (RI) and a fine of ₹10,000

The appellant challenged this conviction but, during the appeal, confined his arguments solely to the reduction of the sentence, noting he had already undergone over eight months in jail and had been facing trial for nine years

1. Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act was legally sustainable based on the evidence

2. Whether the sentence imposed should be reduced to the period already undergone given the passage of time and the circumstances of the appellant

The Court primarily applied Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, which penalizes the possession of a quantity of cannabis greater than small quantity but less than commercial quantity

The Court also adhered to the procedural mandates of Section 50 of the NDPS Act regarding the conditions under which a search of a person shall be conducted

Furthermore, the Court exercised its appellate discretion under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. to modify the sentence while maintaining the conviction

The Court found that the prosecution successfully proved the seizure of 10.00 kg of ganja from the appellant’s possession

The Investigating Officer followed all mandatory and directive provisions of the NDPS Act, including the recording of secret information and compliance with Section 50

Since the appellant offered no valid license for the substance, the conviction was upheld

Regarding the sentence, the Court noted that the incident occurred in 2017 and nine years had passed

Considering the appellant's age (34 years), his conduct while on bail, and the fact that he had already served more than eight months of the three-year sentence, the Court determined that sending him back to jail would serve no useful purpose

The fine of ₹10,000 and the default sentence remained intact

The appellant was ordered to be released forthwith, subject to the operation of his bail bonds for six months as per Section 481 of the BNSS, 2023