Sentence for intermediate quantity NDPS offense reduced to period already undergone while upholding conviction.

On July 28, 2017, the Investigating Officer (PW-7) received a tip-off that the appellant and a co-accused were transporting cannabis by bus for sale

Following procedural formalities—including recording the information in the Rojnamcha Sanha and preparing a Mukhbir Panchnama—the police conducted a search and recovered 7.774 kg of cannabis from the appellant

The appellant was subsequently charged and convicted by the Special Judge (NDPS Act), Raigarh, on January 30, 2020, under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act.

He was sentenced to three years of Rigorous Imprisonment (R.I.) and a fine of ₹10,000

In the present appeal under Section 374(2) of the CrPC, the appellant’s counsel did not challenge the conviction on merits but sought a reduction of the sentence to the period already undergone (approximately 17 months)

1. Whether the prosecution successfully established compliance with the mandatory procedural requirements of Sections 42, 52-A, and 55 of the NDPS Act.

2. Whether the sentence of three years R.I. should be modified to the period already served by the appellant given the circumstances of the case.

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

It strictly scrutinized the procedural mandates of Section 42 of the NDPS Act, which governs the power of entry, search, seizure, and arrest without a warrant, emphasizing the requirement to record information in writing and notify superior officers

Furthermore, the Court relied on the procedural safeguards under Sections 52-A and 55 regarding the handling and sampling of seized substances

For procedural conduct of the appeal in the absence of the appellant's counsel, the Court cited Surya Baksh Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2014) 14 SCC 222

The Court examined the trial records and the testimony of the Investigating Officer (PW-7) to verify procedural integrity.

It found that the officer had recorded the secret information and forwarded it to higher authorities, thereby satisfying the requirements of Section 42

The Forensic Science Laboratory report confirmed that the seized 7.774 kg of material was indeed cannabis, solidifying the evidentiary basis for conviction

Regarding the sentence, the Court noted that the appellant had been facing litigation since 2017, had no prior criminal record, and had already served 17 months of his three-year sentence

The Court reasoned that given these factors and the specific quantity of the contraband (intermediate quantity), reducing the sentence to the period already undergone would serve the ends of justice while maintaining the conviction

However, it modified the order of sentence, reducing the jail term to the period of approximately 17 months already undergone by the appellant

The fine of ₹10,000 and the corresponding default imprisonment sentence were maintained

The Court ordered the lower court records to be returned for immediate compliance