Sentence for intermediate-quantity Alprazolam possession reduced to time served; conviction affirmed.

On 16 March 2021, police allegedly seized 250 Alprazolam tablets, weighing 40 grams, from Prateek Sharma.

The chemical examination report confirmed Alprazolam in the sample, with each tablet containing 0.47 mg.

The Special Court convicted him under Section 22(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), and sentenced him to three years’ rigorous imprisonment, a fine of Rs. 25,000, and six months’ additional rigorous imprisonment in default.

On appeal under Section 415(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), Sharma did not challenge his conviction and sought reduction of his custodial sentence to the period already undergone, relying on his age, lack of criminal antecedents, and time spent in custody.

1. Whether the conviction under Section 22(b) of the NDPS Act was supported by the evidence and should be affirmed.

2. Whether the three-year custodial sentence should be reduced to the period already undergone, while leaving the fine and default sentence intact.

Section 22(b) of the NDPS Act governs punishment for contraventions involving psychotropic substances in an intermediate quantity; the Court considered Alprazolam’s entry in the Schedule to the Act when assessing the conviction.

Section 415(2) of the BNSS provided the basis for the appeal.

Section 481 of the BNSS required the appellant to furnish a bond following his release.

The judgment cites no precedents.

The Court found that the investigating officer’s evidence and seizure memo supported the recovery, and that the chemical report established the presence of Alprazolam. Although the seizure witnesses were not examined, the Court found no material elicited in cross-examination to discredit the investigating officer; it therefore affirmed the conviction.

On sentence, it considered the intermediate quantity, the appellant’s lack of criminal antecedents, and the period of custody served, concluding that further detention was unnecessary.

The fine of Rs. 25,000 and the default sentence remained unchanged.

The Court directed the appellant’s release forthwith if he was not required in another case and ordered him to furnish a personal bond for Rs. 25,000, effective for six months, with the specified undertaking concerning any Special Leave Petition.