Sentence for intermediate quantity NDPS conviction reduced to period served while maintaining conviction and fine.

On June 11, 2016, police intercepted the appellants on a motorcycle based on informant information

A search conducted in the presence of witnesses led to the recovery of 11 packets of marijuana (totaling 10.2 kg) hidden in a sack

Procedural steps, including notices under Section 50 of the NDPS Act and preparation of search/seizure panchnamas, were recorded

The Special Judge (NDPS Act), Raigarh, convicted the appellants on July 29, 2017, sentencing them to six years of rigorous imprisonment (R.I.) and a fine of ₹5,000 each

The appellants challenged this judgment, primarily seeking a reduction in sentence rather than contesting the conviction on merits

1. Whether the mandatory procedural requirements for search, seizure, and sampling under Sections 42, 52-A, and 55 of the NDPS Act were strictly complied with

2. Whether the sentence of six years R.I. should be reduced to the period already undergone (approximately 2 years and 2.5 months) given the lapse of time since the 2016 incident

Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, 1985, which penalizes the possession of intermediate quantities of cannabis

Section 42 (procedural requirements for entry, search, and seizure)

Section 52-A (disposal of seized drugs), and Section 55 (police custody of seized articles)

Judicial discretion in sentencing where the appellant does not press the appeal on merits and has served a significant portion of the sentence

The Court examined the testimony of 10 prosecution witnesses and the documentary evidence, including informant panchnamas and forensic reports

It determined that the Investigating Officer followed the statutory mandates of Sections 42, 52-A(3), and 55 of the NDPS Act during the search and sampling process

The Regional Forensic Science Laboratory report confirmed the seized substance was marijuana, sustaining the conviction

On the issue of sentencing, the court observed that the appellants had been facing litigation since 2016 and had already served over 26 months of their six-year sentence

Given these circumstances and the fact that the seized quantity (10.2 kg) was not commercial, the court found it appropriate to limit the jail term to the time already served while maintaining the fine

The court ordered the reduction of the jail sentence to the period already undergone by the appellants

The fine of ₹5,000 and its corresponding default sentence were maintained

The appeals were partly allowed regarding the sentence modification