NDPS sentence reduced to period undergone, prioritizing rehabilitative justice for first-time offenders.

On May 5, 2020, acting on a tip, Inspector Rajesh Jagat (PW-9) conducted a search in village Kediaama and seized 2 kg of Ganja from the appellant’s possession

Following investigation and trial, the Special Judge (NDPS Act), Raipur, convicted the appellant on September 3, 2025, under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, sentencing him to three years of Rigorous Imprisonment (RI) and a fine of ₹30,000

The appellant challenged the judgment but restricted his plea to the reduction of the sentence, highlighting that he had no prior criminal record, was 28 years old, and had already served approximately 530 days (nearly half the sentence)

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

2. Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence of the appellant should 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 prescribes punishment for the possession of an intermediate quantity of cannabis

It further relied on the sentencing principles articulated in Mohammad Giasuddin v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1977) 3 SCC 287, which emphasizes the reformative theory of punishment, holding that the state should seek to rehabilitate and socially defend the offender rather than merely inflict retribution or "brutal incarceration"

The court affirmed the conviction, finding that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses (PW-6, PW-7, PW-9, PW-12, PW-13, and PW-14) and the FSL report (Ex. P-55) conclusively established the seizure of Ganja from the appellant

Regarding the quantum of sentence, the court observed that the appellant was young (28 years), educated up to the 12th grade, and lacked any prior criminal history

Applying the therapeutic approach from Mohammad Giasuddin, the court reasoned that prolonged injury to the individual does not facilitate reform

Given that the appellant had already served 530 days and had deposited the fine, the court determined that the ends of justice would be met by limiting the sentence to the time already served

The substantive sentence of three years RI was reduced to the period of 530 days already undergone by the appellant

The fine of ₹30,000 and the default sentence remained unchanged

The court directed the immediate release of the appellant if not required in any other matter