Jail sentence reduced to period already undergone for young accused; conviction affirmed.

On 8 May 2020, police intercepted the appellant and a co-accused travelling by motorcycle and seized 5 kg of ganja from their joint possession.

The appellant was charged under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act”). The Special Judge convicted him and sentenced him to two years’ rigorous imprisonment, a fine of ₹25,000, and, in default of payment, a further three months’ rigorous imprisonment.

The appellant appealed under Section 415(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”). He did not press the challenge to his conviction and sought reduction of his custodial sentence to the period already undergone, relying on his age and time spent in custody.

The State opposed interference.

1. Whether the appellant’s conviction under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act should be disturbed, notwithstanding that he did not press his challenge to the conviction.

2. Whether the appellant’s custodial sentence should be reduced to the period already undergone, having regard to his age and time spent in custody.

The appeal was brought under Section 415(2) of the BNSS, and the conviction was for an offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act.

The Court assessed the conviction against the prosecution evidence, including witness testimony and the FSL report confirming that the seized substance was ganja.

No precedent or specific sentencing doctrine was cited; in considering the custodial sentence, the Court relied on the circumstances identified in its judgment, including the period already undergone and the appellant’s age.

Although the appellant confined his appeal to sentence, the Court reviewed the evidence and found that the testimony of the investigating officer and other witnesses, together with the FSL report, supported the finding that the seized substance was ganja. It therefore found no basis to interfere with the conviction.

On sentence, the Court considered that the appellant was 21 years old and had already undergone more than eight months in custody. It concluded that further detention was unnecessary to serve the ends of justice and reduced the custodial sentence accordingly.

The appeal was partly allowed. The custodial sentence was reduced to the period already undergone—recorded as 8 May 2020 to 22 June 2020 and 10 March 2026 to the date of judgment. The fine and default sentence were maintained. The Court directed the appellant’s release forthwith unless required in another case.