Reduction of sentence to period undergone for intermediate quantity possession while upholding NDPS conviction.

On February 19, 2016, the Station House Officer of Police Station Pathriya received secret information regarding three individuals transporting Ganja by motorcycle

Upon intercepting the appellants at Village Bhathapara, a search conducted by the police revealed a bag containing 4.020 kg of Ganja in the possession of Appellant No. 1

The appellants were convicted by the Special Judge (NDPS), Mungeli, on March 26, 2019, under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act and sentenced to three years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹15,000 each

During the pendency of the appeal, Appellant No. 3 (Vishnu Sahu) died on March 30, 2024; since no application for continuation of the appeal was filed by his legal heirs under Section 394 of the CrPC, the appeal abated regarding him

Appellants No. 1 and 2 limited their prayer to a reduction of sentence, having already served five months and two days of their term

1. Whether the appeal on behalf of Appellant No. 3 abates under Section 394 of the CrPC due to his death and the absence of a continuation application by legal heirs

2. Whether the search, seizure, and conviction under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act were procedurally and substantively valid

3. Whether the sentence of three years should be reduced to the period already undergone (approx. 5 months) given the facts and duration of the litigation

The court applied Section 394 of the CrPC, which dictates the abatement of appeals upon the death of an accused unless legal heirs apply for leave to continue within thirty days

For the search and seizure, the court applied Section 42 of the NDPS Act (power of entry, search, and seizure without warrant), Section 52-A(3) (disposal of seized substances), and Section 55 (police custody of seized articles)

The substantive charge was governed by Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, which penalizes the possession of an intermediate quantity of cannabis

The court initially confirmed the abatement of the appeal for Appellant No. 3 as no application was filed within the statutory period following his death

On the merits, the court reviewed the testimony of the Investigating Officer and the procedural records, concluding that the mandatory requirements for search and seizure under Sections 42, 52-A(3), and 55 of the NDPS Act were strictly followed

The court placed significant weight on the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report, which confirmed the seized 4.020 kg of material as Ganja, thus affirming the trial court’s judgment of conviction

In considering the sentence, the court noted that the appellants had been facing legal proceedings since 2016 and had already served five months and two days in custody

Given that the quantity of Ganja was relatively low (just above the small quantity threshold) and the appellants did not contest the conviction on merits, the court determined that the ends of justice would be met by reducing the jail term to the period already served

The appeal regarding Appellant No. 3 was dismissed as abated

For Appellants No. 1 and 2, the substantive jail sentence was reduced to the period already undergone (5 months and 2 days), while the fine of ₹15,000 and its corresponding default sentence were maintained

The court ordered the records to be returned to the trial court for compliance