NDPS sentence for intermediate quantity reduced citing reformative theory and absence of prior drug-related antecedents.

On July 7, 2023, acting on secret information, police apprehended the Appellant near Nashti Bhawani Temple, Bilaspur, carrying a bag containing two packets of contraband

Upon weighment, the substance was identified as 9.065 kg of ganja

Following an investigation and FSL confirmation, the Appellant was charged and subsequently convicted by the Special Judge (NDPS Act), Bilaspur, on November 28, 2025

He was sentenced to five years of Rigorous Imprisonment (RI) and a fine of ₹50,000 under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act

In the present appeal, the Appellant chose not to contest the conviction on merits but confined his plea to the reduction of the sentence, noting he had already served approximately two years and nine months in custody

1. Whether the conviction of the Appellant under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act is legally sustainable based on the evidence on record

2. Whether the sentence of five years RI should be reduced to the period already undergone or a lesser term based on the principles of reformative justice and the Appellant’s circumstances

The court applied Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, which penalizes the possession of intermediate quantities of cannabis

Procedurally, the appeal was governed by Section 415(2) of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

Regarding sentencing philosophy, the Court relied on the landmark precedent of Mohammad Giasuddin v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1977) 3 SCC 287, which emphasizes the "therapeutic" and "reformative" theory of punishment over a purely retributive approach, asserting that the state should aim to rehabilitate rather than avenge

The Court first affirmed the conviction, noting that the testimonies of nine prosecution witnesses, including the Investigating Officer (PW-9) and the FSL report (Ex.P-58), sufficiently proved the recovery and nature of the contraband

Regarding the quantum of sentence, the Court observed that the Appellant had served over half of his original five-year sentence and was a laborer by profession

While the State pointed out six previous criminal antecedents under the IPC and Arms Act, it was noted that the Appellant had no prior history under the NDPS Act

Applying the reformative logic from Mohammad Giasuddin, the Court reasoned that since there is no mandatory minimum sentence for intermediate quantities under Section 20(b)(ii)(B), a reduction in sentence would serve the interests of justice without compromising social defense

The sentence of RI was reduced from five years to three years, while the fine of ₹50,000 and the default sentence remained unchanged

The Court further directed that the Appellant be granted the benefit of set-off for the period already spent in jail since July 7, 2023