Sentence for intermediate quantity NDPS offense reduced to period undergone absent a prescribed statutory minimum.

On 21.02.2024, acting on secret information, police conducted a search at the Appellant’s makeshift tea stall in Mangla Dhuripara, Bilaspur, recovering 1.415 kg of ganja, sale proceeds, and 1300 empty plastic pouches.

After completing procedural requirements under the NDPS Act and filing a charge-sheet, the Trial Court (Special Judge, NDPS Act, Bilaspur) convicted the Appellant on 13.01.2026.

The Appellant was sentenced to five years of Rigorous Imprisonment (RI) and a fine of ₹50,000 under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act.

The Appellant preferred this appeal under Section 415(2) of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking a reduction in sentence to the period already undergone.

1. Whether the conviction of the Appellant under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act is legally sustainable based on the evidence of recovery?

2. Whether the sentence of five years RI should be reduced to the period already undergone (approx. 2 years and 1 month) in light of reformative justice principles?

The court primarily applied Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, which penalizes the possession of intermediate quantities of cannabis and does not prescribe a mandatory minimum sentence.

It further relied on the reformative theory of punishment as established in Mohammad Giasuddin v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1977) 3 SCC 287, which posits that the state should focus on rehabilitating and redeeming the offender rather than seeking retributive vengeance.

The Court upheld the conviction, finding that the testimonies of the Investigating Officer (PW-11) and Head Constable (PW-6), supported by the FSL Report (Ex.P-71) identifying the substance as 'Ganja', sufficiently proved the recovery from the Appellant's possession.

Regarding the sentence, the Court noted that the Appellant had already served over 2 years and 1 month of the 5-year sentence.

The Court observed that while the Appellant had four prior IPC-related antecedents, he had no previous record under the NDPS Act.

Applying the "therapeutic" outlook from Mohammad Giasuddin, the Court reasoned that since no minimum sentence is prescribed for the seized quantity and the Appellant had suffered the agony of a protracted trial, reducing the sentence to the period already undergone would serve the interests of justice and rehabilitation.

It reduced the sentence to the period already undergone by the Appellant and further reduced the fine from ₹50,000 to ₹10,000.

The Appellant was ordered to be released forthwith, provided he was not required in any other matter.