Sentence for intermediate quantity NDPS offense reduced to period undergone based on age and lack of antecedents.

On May 26, 2015, acting on an informant's tip regarding the transportation of marijuana, Assistant Sub-Inspector G.S. Chandel intercepted the appellant at Dongripali Chowk

A search of the appellant’s motorcycle bag yielded six packets containing 6 kilograms of marijuana (ganja)

Samples were drawn and subsequently confirmed as ganja by the FSL Raipur

The appellant was arrested and later convicted by the Special Judge (NDPS Act), Mahasamund, on August 2, 2016, under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, receiving a sentence of five years of rigorous imprisonment (R.I.) and a fine of ₹10,000

The appellant challenged this conviction, asserting false implication and procedural coercion

During the appeal, the appellant’s counsel limited arguments to the quantum of sentence, noting the appellant had already served approximately three years and ten months of his five-year sentence

1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was in conscious possession of the contraband

2. Whether the mandatory procedural safeguards under the NDPS Act were complied with during the search and seizure

3. Whether the conviction recorded by the trial court is sustainable

4. Whether the sentence imposed requires interference or reduction based on the circumstances of the case

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

It applied the evidentiary principle that the testimony of official witnesses (police officers) is reliable and sufficient for conviction even if independent witnesses turn hostile, provided the official testimony inspires confidence

Furthermore, the Court exercised its discretion under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. to modify sentences by considering mitigating factors such as the age of the accused, lack of criminal antecedents, and the duration of incarceration already undergone

The Court found that the Investigating Officer’s testimony was consistent and established the factum of search and seizure despite the lack of support from independent witnesses

The Court noted that the chain of custody was intact and the FSL report corroborated the nature of the contraband, satisfying the requirements for conscious possession

Regarding the sentence, the Court observed that the appellant was only 20 years old at the time of the incident and had no prior criminal record

Since the incident occurred in 2015 and the appellant had already served three years, ten months, and six days of his five-year term, the Court determined that the long lapse of time and the substantial period of incarceration served as sufficient mitigating factors to warrant a reduction in sentence to the period already undergone

However, the appeal was partly allowed by modifying the sentence of five years R.I. to the period of imprisonment already undergone (~3 years and 10 months)

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

The Court further ordered the bail bonds to remain operative for six months pursuant to Section 437A of the CrPC (now Section 481 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023)