NDPS sentence reduced to period already undergone considering personal circumstances and substantial time served.

On September 2, 2024, police officials from Purani Basti Station, Raipur, conducted a raid based on informant information and seized 3.500 kg of Ganja from the appellant

A case was registered, and the substance was confirmed as Ganja via a Forensic Science Laboratory report (Ex.P-46)

The Trial Court (Special Judge, NDPS Act, Raipur) convicted the appellant on December 1, 2025, under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, sentencing him to one year of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹25,000

The appellant challenged this judgment under Section 415 of the BNSS, 2023, though his counsel limited the prayer to a reduction of sentence to the period already undergone, noting the appellant had already served 11 months and 24 days of his one-year term

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

2. Whether the sentence of the appellant should be reduced to the period already undergone considering his age, socio-economic background, and duration of incarceration.

The court applied Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, which penalizes the possession of an intermediate quantity of cannabis

Procedurally, the appeal was governed by Section 415 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023

Regarding sentencing, the Court relied on the principles established in Mohammad Giasuddin v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1977) 3 SCC 287, which advocates for a reformative approach to punishment based on the individual circumstances of the offender

The Court affirmed the conviction by validating the evidentiary findings of the Trial Court, specifically the testimony of Ganesh Ram Sahu (PW-3), the seizure memo (Ex.P-27), and the FSL report (Ex.P-46), which established the appellant’s involvement in possessing the contraband

In analyzing the sentence, the Court weighed the appellant’s profile—a 30-year-old laborer with family responsibilities and limited education (8th standard)—against the State’s objection regarding his seven previous criminal cases under other acts

The Court observed that the appellant had already served 11 months and 24 days of his 12-month sentence

Applying the reformative spirit of Mohammad Giasuddin, the Court reasoned that the ends of justice would be met by reducing the sentence to the period already served, as the appellant had effectively completed the bulk of his custodial term

The Court held that the rigorous imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone (11 months and 24 days), while the fine of ₹25,000 and its default stipulation remain intact

The appeal was partly allowed, and the Court ordered the appellant’s immediate release, provided he is not required in other cases and has satisfied the fine requirement