For non-commercial opium possession, imprisonment reduced to one year with an enhanced fine.

On 19 November 2020, police intercepted the appellant while he was riding a motorcycle and recovered 2.300 kg of opium from a sack hanging from its handlebars.

The Special Judge, NDPS Act, Ratlam, convicted him under Section 8(c)/18(b) of the NDPS Act and sentenced him to six years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹10,000.

In appeal, the appellant did not press his challenge to the conviction and sought reduction of sentence, submitting that he had undergone about ten months’ imprisonment, had no criminal antecedents, and had faced trial for over five years.

The State opposed the request.

Whether the trial court’s conviction required interference, although the appellant did not press his challenge to the findings on the merits.

Whether the appellant’s six-year sentence could be reduced, having regard to the quantity of opium, time already served, and absence of criminal antecedents.

The Court considered the appellant’s conviction under Sections 8(c)/18(b) of the NDPS Act and referred to the sentencing approach in R. Kumaravel v. Inspector of Police, NIB CID (RA No. 1056/2019), which reduced imprisonment for an offence involving a quantity greater than small but less than commercial in light of the circumstances and time served.

It also relied on decisions of the Supreme Court and this Court reducing custodial terms in cases involving non-commercial quantities, including Mangilal v. Central Narcotics Bureau and other coordinate Bench decisions.

The Court stated that no minimum sentence was prescribed in the circumstances under consideration and treated the non-commercial quantity, absence of antecedents, and period of incarceration as relevant to sentence.

The Court found no error in the trial court’s appreciation of the evidence and upheld the conviction, noting that the prosecution evidence supported the case and that the procedure had been followed.

On sentence, it considered that the seized 2.300 kg of opium was a non-commercial quantity, that the appellant had undergone approximately ten months of imprisonment, and that he had no criminal antecedents.

Applying the cited decisions on sentence reduction in non-commercial quantity cases, it concluded that reducing the term to one year while substantially enhancing the fine would meet the ends of justice.

The appellant was to be released forthwith if not required in another case, subject to the enhanced fine, and any fine already paid was to be adjusted.

The order concerning disposal of the seized property was affirmed.