01Facts
On 14 April 2025, police recovered 6.93 grams of heroin (smack) from the appellant’s possession and prosecuted him under Sections 8 and 21(b) of the NDPS Act.
¶ 1–3The Special Judge, Narsinghpur, convicted him under Section 8 read with Section 21(b) and sentenced him to two years’ rigorous imprisonment, a fine of ₹10,000, and one year’s rigorous imprisonment in default of payment.
¶ 1–3On appeal, the appellant did not challenge his conviction and sought reduction of his substantive sentence, relying on the quantity recovered, his status as a first-time offender, and the period of imprisonment already undergone, stated to be approximately 17 months.
¶ 402Issues
i.Whether the conviction under Section 8 read with Section 21(b) of the NDPS Act was sustainable
¶ 7ii.Whether, in the circumstances, the appellant’s substantive sentence should be reduced to the period already undergone and the fine varied
¶ 803Law Applied
Section 8 read with Section 21(b) of the NDPS Act governed the offence and punishment for the heroin possession at issue.
¶ 1In determining the appropriate sentence, the Court considered the quantity of the contraband, the appellant’s lack of prior criminal antecedents, and the period of incarceration already undergone as relevant circumstances.
¶ 8The appeal was brought under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, read with Section 415 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
¶ 1No precedent was cited.
Provisions in the judgment · 5 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 374
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 415
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Section 8Section 21Section 50
04Reasoning
The Court independently examined the prosecution evidence despite the appellant not contesting the conviction and found no illegality or perversity in the trial court’s assessment; it therefore affirmed the conviction.
¶ 7On sentence, it noted that 6.93 grams exceeded the notified small quantity of 5 grams but was substantially below the commercial quantity of 250 grams, and considered the appellant’s lack of antecedents and approximately 17 months already served.
¶ 8It concluded that the sentence could be reduced to time served while increasing the fine.
¶ 8–905Holding
The appeal was partly allowed.
¶ 9–11The conviction under Section 8 read with Section 21(b) of the NDPS Act was affirmed, while the two-year substantive sentence was reduced to the period already undergone, stated as 17 months.
¶ 9–11The fine was enhanced from ₹10,000 to ₹25,000; the default sentence remained unchanged.
¶ 9–11The appellant was directed to pay the enhanced fine within one month and was to be released forthwith if not required in another case.
¶ 9–11Original Court PDF
Praduman KouravvsThe State Of Madhya Pradesh
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
