Sentence for intermediate narcotics possession reduced for first-time offender applying reformative sentencing principles.

On April 1, 2024, the GRP Raipur, acting on informant intelligence, conducted a raid and seized 8.800 kg of contraband Ganja from a sky-blue trolley bag in the possession of the appellant.

The substance was confirmed as Ganja via a Forensic Science Laboratory report (Ex.P-35).

Following a trial where nine prosecution witnesses were examined, the Special Judge (NDPS Act), Raipur, convicted the appellant on June 30, 2025, under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985.

The appellant was sentenced to five years of rigorous imprisonment (RI) and a fine of ₹10,000.

The appellant challenged this judgment before the High Court of Chhattisgarh under Section 415 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, but confined his prayer to the reduction of the sentence rather than contesting the conviction on merits.

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

2. Whether the sentence of five years RI should be reduced considering the appellant’s socio-economic background, lack of criminal antecedents, and the reformative theory of punishment.

The Court applied Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, 1985, which penalizes the possession of "intermediate quantities" of cannabis.

It further relied on the reformative principles of penology established by the Supreme Court of India in Mohammad Giasuddin v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1977) 3 SCC 287, which posits that the focus of sentencing should be the rehabilitation of the offender rather than mere retribution, especially when dealing with first-time offenders from marginalized backgrounds.

The Court first affirmed the conviction, noting that the testimony of the Investigating Officer (PW-8), the seizure memo (Ex.P-14), and the FSL report (Ex.P-35) conclusively established the appellant's involvement in the crime.

In evaluating the sentence, the Court examined the appellant’s personal circumstances: he is 43 years old, a laborer with family responsibilities, has no prior criminal record, and has minimal education (up to 4th standard).

Applying the therapeutic outlook suggested in Mohammad Giasuddin, the Court reasoned that "men are not improved by injuries" and that the state should aim to rehabilitate rather than avenge.

The Court determined that while the conviction must stand to deter anti-social behavior, a sentence of five years was excessive given the appellant's background and the fact that he had already served over 11 months in custody.

The term of rigorous imprisonment was reduced from five years to one and a half (1.5) years.

To balance this reduction, the Court enhanced the fine from ₹10,000 to ₹50,000, with an increased default sentence of one year RI in case of non-payment.

The Court ordered that the 11 months and 3 days already served by the appellant be set off against the newly imposed sentence.

The appeal was partly allowed.