NDPS conviction upheld, but sentence reduced to the period already undergone.

On 3 September 2014, S.S.B. personnel received information that a person was entering India from Nepal carrying illegal ganja. The informant and accompanying personnel proceeded to the indicated location and intercepted the appellant, Lalan Singh, near Border Pillar No. 421 while he was riding a bicycle. Approximately 1.5 kg of ganja was allegedly found tied beneath the bicycle seat in a gamchha, and the appellant purportedly disclosed that he had brought it from Nepal

The seized substance led to registration of Bhangaha P.S. Case No. 28 of 2014 under Sections 20, 22, 23, 24, 27A and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Following investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted and the appellant was tried by the Special Court under the NDPS Act

The prosecution examined four witnesses, including the informant, two members of the raiding party, and the Investigating Officer, and exhibited the seizure documents, apprehension form, written complaint, formal FIR, alleged confessional statement, and F.S.L. report

The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 20(b)(ii)B of the NDPS Act and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for one year and six months, together with a fine of ₹15,000, with three months’ imprisonment in default of payment

Whether the prosecution evidence was sufficient to sustain the appellant’s conviction under Section 20(b)(ii)B of the NDPS Act?

Whether, in view of the appellant’s advanced age, the lapse of time, and the period already undergone, the sentence should be reduced or otherwise modified?

The Court applied Section 20(b)(ii)B of the NDPS Act, which penalises possession, transportation, or related involvement concerning cannabis in a quantity falling within the statutory category specified in that provision

The Court also applied the principle that a conviction may be sustained where the testimony of prosecution witnesses is found reliable, consistent, and sufficiently corroborated by the documentary and scientific evidence on record

In relation to sentencing, the Court exercised its appellate discretion to modify the sentence in light of the appellant’s age, the age of the occurrence, the period already spent in custody, and the absence of any subsequent complaint against him

The Court found the evidence of the informant, the two S.S.B. constables who participated in the raid, and the Investigating Officer to be trustworthy and mutually supportive. The defence was unable to controvert their testimony, and the prosecution had also produced the seizure materials and F.S.L. report

On that basis, the Court concluded that the prosecution had established the appellant’s involvement in the possession and transportation of the seized ganja and upheld the conviction under Section 20(b)(ii)B of the NDPS Act

However, while considering sentence, the Court took into account that the incident occurred in 2014, the appellant was more than 72 years old, no subsequent complaint had been made against him, and he had already remained in custody for more than four months

The Court therefore considered that the ends of justice would be met by reducing the substantive sentence to the period already undergone.

The sentence of one year and six months’ rigorous imprisonment was modified and reduced to the period already undergone. The fine of ₹15,000 imposed by the trial court was also waived, along with the default sentence

The appeal was accordingly disposed of