MP HC Upholds 10g Smack Conviction, Cuts First-Time Offender’s Five-Year Term To Time Served And Raises Fine To ₹25,000

On 15 August 2023, police apprehended the appellant following secret information and allegedly recovered 10 grams of smack from him.

He was convicted by the Special Judge, NDPS Act, Narsinghpur, under Section 8 read with Section 21(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act”), and sentenced to five years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹5,000, with one year’s rigorous imprisonment in default.

In appeal, the appellant did not challenge his conviction, but sought reduction of his sentence, submitting that he was a first-time offender, had no prior criminal antecedents, and had undergone 3 years, 2 months and 18 days’ incarceration.

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.

The conviction concerned the offence under Section 8 read with Section 21(b) of the NDPS Act.

In considering sentence, the Court treated the quantity of contraband, the absence of previous criminal antecedents and the period of incarceration already undergone as relevant circumstances.

Although the appellant did not contest the conviction, the Court independently reviewed the prosecution evidence and documentary record, found no illegality or perversity in the trial court’s assessment, and affirmed the conviction.

On sentence, it noted that the 10 grams recovered exceeded the notified small quantity of 5 grams but was substantially below the commercial quantity of 250 grams; it also considered the appellant’s asserted lack of prior criminal antecedents and the 3 years, 2 months and 18 days already served.

In light of those circumstances, the Court concluded that the ends of justice would be met by reducing the custodial sentence to the period already undergone while increasing the fine.

The fine was enhanced from ₹5,000 to ₹25,000; the trial court’s default sentence remained unchanged, and any fine already deposited was to be adjusted accordingly.

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