Madhya Pradesh High CourtCriminal LawCriminal Procedure and Evidence

MP HC Cuts 6.93g Smack Convict’s Jail Term To 17 Months, Raises Fine To ₹25,000 After Finding No Prior Record

Praduman Kouravv.The State Of Madhya Pradesh

MP HC Cuts 6.93g Smack Convict’s Jail Term To 17 Months, Raises Fine To ₹25,000 After Finding No Prior Record. Praduman Kourav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh. Madhya Pradesh High Court. LawLens
The LawLens card for this judgmentXLinkedInWhatsApp

In brief

The question

Whether the conviction under Section 8 read with Section 21(b) of the NDPS Act was sustainable

The court held

The appeal was partly allowed.

It also directed

The 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.

The fine was enhanced from ₹10,000 to ₹25,000; the default sentence remained unchanged.

The appellant was directed to pay the enhanced fine within one month and was to be released forthwith if not required in another case.

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.

¶ 1–3

The 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.

¶ 1–3

On 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.

¶ 4

02Issues

i.Whether the conviction under Section 8 read with Section 21(b) of the NDPS Act was sustainable

¶ 7

ii.Whether, in the circumstances, the appellant’s substantive sentence should be reduced to the period already undergone and the fine varied

¶ 8

03Law Applied

Section 8 read with Section 21(b) of the NDPS Act governed the offence and punishment for the heroin possession at issue.

¶ 1

In 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.

¶ 8

The 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.

¶ 1

No 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.

¶ 7

On 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.

¶ 8

It concluded that the sentence could be reduced to time served while increasing the fine.

¶ 8–9

05Holding

The appeal was partly allowed.

¶ 9–11

The 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.

¶ 9–11

The fine was enhanced from ₹10,000 to ₹25,000; the default sentence remained unchanged.

¶ 9–11

The appellant was directed to pay the enhanced fine within one month and was to be released forthwith if not required in another case.

¶ 9–11
Madhya Pradesh High Court

Original Court PDF

Praduman KouravvsThe State Of Madhya Pradesh

Madhya Pradesh High Court · November 02, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment