For intermediate ganja quantity, substantive sentence may be reduced to imprisonment already undergone absent a statutory minimum.

On 8 December 2017, members of an ITBP patrol intercepted the appellants while they were travelling on a motorcycle and carrying a plastic bag. The bag allegedly contained ganja, which was seized after search and seizure proceedings. The seized substance, along with the bag, weighed 4.680 kilograms. Various panchnamas were prepared concerning identification, recovery, weighment, homogenisation, seizure, sampling and sealing. The material was deposited in the malkhana and subsequently sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, whose report confirmed the presence of ganja.

The appellants were charged under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act”). The Special Judge, Rajnandgaon, convicted both appellants and sentenced each to five years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹20,000, with six months’ rigorous imprisonment in default of payment of fine, by judgment dated 26 November 2019.

In appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the appellants did not challenge their conviction and confined their submissions to reduction of sentence. They relied on the intermediate quantity involved, the absence of a statutory minimum sentence, their incarceration of more than five months, the passage of time, family responsibilities and willingness to pay the fine. The State opposed reduction of sentence on the ground of the seriousness and societal impact of narcotic offences.

Whether the conviction of the appellants under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act was sustainable on the evidence relating to recovery, seizure, sampling and forensic confirmation of ganja?

Whether, in the circumstances of the case, the substantive sentence of five years’ rigorous imprisonment imposed on each appellant ought to be reduced to the period already undergone?

The Court exercised appellate jurisdiction under Section 374(2) CrPC and applied Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act concerning possession of cannabis/ganja involving an intermediate quantity. Since the provision does not prescribe a minimum term of imprisonment, the sentencing court retains discretion to impose an appropriate sentence within the statutory limits.

The Court relied on Raj Bala v. State of Haryana, (2016) 1 SCC 463, and the principles drawn from Gopal Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, (2013) 7 SCC 545, that punishment must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and determined through rational, non-arbitrary judicial discretion.

It also relied on Shailesh Jasvantbhai v. State of Gujarat for the principle that sentencing must balance societal protection and deterrence with relevant mitigating circumstances, without extending undue sympathy.

Mohammad Giasuddin v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1977) 3 SCC 287, was relied upon for the principle that sentencing should consider the nature of the offence, aggravating and mitigating circumstances, antecedents, age, social and family background, prospects of rehabilitation and the need for deterrence.

The Court found that the evidence of the investigating officer and seizure witnesses established that the appellants were intercepted while carrying the contraband, and that the recovery proceedings were corroborated by the relevant panchnamas.

The weighment evidence established the quantity as 4.680 kilograms, while the Naib Tahsildar proved the inventory and sampling proceedings. The FSL report further confirmed that the seized substance was ganja. Finding no material contradiction or infirmity affecting the prosecution case, the Court affirmed the conviction under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act.

On sentence, the Court balanced the seriousness and societal impact of narcotic offences against the mitigating circumstances: the offence was committed in 2017; the quantity was intermediate; the appellants had undergone more than five months’ incarceration; the offence carried no statutory minimum sentence; there was no material showing previous criminal antecedents; and the appellants were willing to pay the fine.

Applying the proportionality and individualised sentencing principles, the Court concluded that continuation of the five-year substantive sentence was not warranted, while maintaining the fine and its default sentence.

However, the substantive sentence of five years’ rigorous imprisonment imposed on each appellant was reduced to the period already undergone. The fine of ₹20,000 imposed on each appellant, along with the default sentence of six months’ rigorous imprisonment, was maintained.

The appeal was partly allowed. Their bail bonds were directed to remain operative for the applicable statutory period, and the trial-court record was ordered to be returned for compliance.