Reduction of sentence to period undergone in non-commercial quantity NDPS cases based on reformative sentencing principles.

The Appellant was accused of illegally storing 2.100 kgs of Ganja at her residence in Motisagar Para, Korba.

Following a search conducted by the Kotwali Police based on informer information, the contraband was recovered in two packets and one foil.

The Trial Court (Special Judge, NDPS Act, Korba) convicted the Appellant in NDPS Case No. 30/2024 on 05.01.2026, sentencing her to 2 years Rigorous Imprisonment (RI) and a fine of ₹10,000.

The Appellant challenged the judgment but, during the appeal, confined her arguments solely to the reduction of the sentence, citing that she had already served over two months and that the quantity seized was small.

Whether the conviction of the Appellant under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act is sustainable based on the evidence of recovery and FSL reports.

Whether the sentence of 2 years RI should be reduced to the period already undergone (or a lesser period) based on reformative justice principles and the nature of the offense.

The court primarily applied Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, which penalizes the possession of "intermediate quantities" of cannabis.

The court further relied on the reformative theory of punishment as propounded by the Supreme Court in Mohammad Giasuddin v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1977), which emphasizes rehabilitation over retribution and suggests that incarceration should aim to improve rather than merely injure the offender.

The Court affirmed the conviction by noting that the Investigating Officer (P.W.7) successfully proved the recovery of the contraband from the Appellant's house and the FSL report (Ex.P-51) confirmed the substance was "Ganja".

Regarding the sentence, the Court noted that Section 20(b)(ii)(B) does not prescribe a mandatory minimum sentence.

Applying the Mohammad Giasuddin precedent, the Court balanced the "pathological aberration" of the crime against the Appellant’s status as a woman who had already suffered the trauma of a protracted trial.

Although the State opposed leniency citing a 2023 criminal record for minor IPC offenses, the Court found that a reduced sentence of 3 months RI would satisfy the ends of justice given the specific quantity (2.1 kgs) and the time already served (2 months and 13 days).

It answered the issues by holding that while the guilt was proved beyond doubt, a harsh 2-year sentence was not necessary for rehabilitation.

The sentence was reduced from 2 years RI to 3 months RI.

The fine of ₹10,000 and the default stipulation remained intact.

The Court ordered the period of custody already undergone to be set off against the new 3-month sentence.