NDPS sentence for intermediate quantity reduced to period undergone absent prior criminal antecedents.

On January 4, 2016, acting on secret information, the police intercepted the appellant and seized 4 kg of illicit cannabis (ganja) from his possession

Following the completion of investigation and trial, the Special Judge (NDPS Act), Bilaspur, convicted the appellant on December 28, 2016, in Special Case No. 29/2016

The trial court sentenced the appellant to 1 year and 6 months of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000

The appellant filed the present criminal appeal challenging the conviction; however, during the hearing, the appellant’s counsel did not press the appeal on merits and confined the arguments to the reduction of the quantum of sentence

1. Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 20-B(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act is sustainable based on the evidence and procedural compliance

2. Whether the sentence awarded to the appellant can be reduced to the period already undergone

The Court applied Section 20-B(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, which provides the penal framework for the possession and trafficking of an intermediate quantity of cannabis

It further adhered to the principle that for a conviction under the NDPS Act to stand, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that all mandatory procedural provisions regarding search, seizure, and investigation were strictly followed

Although the appellant did not challenge the conviction on merits, the High Court meticulously reviewed the trial record to ensure the legality of the judgment

The Court found that the trial court properly evaluated the testimonies of nine prosecution witnesses and confirmed that all mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act had been complied with during the search and seizure of the 4 kg of ganja

Regarding the sentence, the Court noted that 4 kg qualifies as an "intermediate quantity"

It took into consideration that the appellant had already served more than one year of his eighteen-month sentence, possessed no prior criminal record, and that over nine years had elapsed since the date of the incident in 2016

The Court reasoned that sending the appellant back to jail for the remaining portion of the sentence after such a delay would serve no useful purpose

However, the Court modified the sentence, reducing the term of imprisonment to the period already undergone by the appellant

The fine amount of Rs. 5,000 imposed by the trial court remained intact

The appeal was allowed in part