01Facts
The appellant was convicted under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act”), after 1 kg of charas was recovered from him on 15 April 2001.
¶ 2–5The trial court sentenced him to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹1,00,000, with two years’ rigorous imprisonment in default of payment.
¶ 2–5In appeal, the appellant did not press a challenge to his conviction and sought reduction of sentence, relying on the time already served, the age of the case, and his lack of subsequent prosecutions.
¶ 9–11The State opposed sentence reduction.
¶ 1202Issues
i.1. Whether 1 kg of charas, being exactly the quantity specified for charas as commercial quantity, constituted “commercial quantity” under the NDPS Act.
¶ 15–16ii.2. Whether the appellant’s sentence should be reduced to the period already undergone, having regard to the circumstances identified by the Court.
¶ 17–2003Law Applied
Section 2(viia) of the NDPS Act defines “commercial quantity” as a quantity greater than the quantity specified by the Central Government by notification.
¶ 16The applicable notification specified 1 kg as the commercial quantity for charas; accordingly, a quantity exactly equal to 1 kg does not meet the statutory definition of commercial quantity.
¶ 15–16The Court also treated the absence of a prescribed minimum sentence for the relevant non-commercial quantity, together with the circumstances of the case, as supporting a reduction of sentence.
¶ 18–20Provisions in the judgment · 3 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Section 20Section 2
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 173
04Reasoning
The Court held that the recovered 1 kg of charas was exactly—not greater than—the notified threshold, and therefore was not commercial quantity within Section 2(viia).
¶ 15–16In considering sentence, it relied on the non-commercial classification, the approximately 25-year interval since the incident, the appellant’s imprisonment of one year, nine months and three days, his status as a first offender, the absence of subsequent prosecutions, and his age of over 49 years.
¶ 17–19On that cumulative basis, it found the ten-year sentence harsh and the period already served sufficient to meet the ends of justice.
¶ 19–2005Holding
The conviction under Section 20 of the NDPS Act was upheld, but the sentence was modified to the period already undergone.
¶ 14, 21The appeal was partly allowed.
¶ 21Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were disposed of.
¶ 22Original Court PDF
Shiv KumarvsStat Of Haryana
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
