Sentence for intermediate quantity NDPS possession reduced based on rehabilitative principles and absence of criminal antecedents.

On October 18, 2024, acting on secret information, police officials from Dipka Police Station apprehended the Appellant at Tilwaripara Dongri.

Upon search, 2 kilograms of ganja (cannabis) were recovered from his possession.

The Appellant disclosed that the contraband was procured from a co-accused for Rs. 16,500.

The prosecution examined 12 witnesses and 60 documents.

On January 21, 2026, the Special Judge (NDPS Act), Korba, convicted the Appellant under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, sentencing him to two years of Rigorous Imprisonment (RI) and a fine of Rs. 10,000.

The Appellant challenged the sentence, but not the conviction, before the High Court.

1. Whether the conviction of the Appellant under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act warrants interference.

2. Whether the sentence of two years Rigorous Imprisonment is excessive and should be reduced to the period already undergone or a lesser duration based on reformative principles.

Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, which penalizes the possession of an "intermediate quantity" of cannabis.

The court exercised appellate jurisdiction under Section 415(2) of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

Principles established in Mohammad Giasuddin v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1977) 3 SCC 287, which emphasizes the reformative theory of punishment, holding that the state should focus on rehabilitation rather than retribution and that "therapeutic" rather than "in terrorem" outlooks should prevail in sentencing.

The High Court affirmed the conviction, noting that the testimonies of the police witnesses (PW-2, PW-3, PW-8, PW-9), seizure witnesses (PW-4, PW-5), and the Investigating Officer (PW-12) contained no illegality or infirmity.

The Court observed that the Appellant had no previous criminal antecedents.

The Court considered the Appellant’s socio-economic background—specifically that he was a driver by profession with only a 4th-grade education.

Applying the reformative analogy from Mohammad Giasuddin, the Court reasoned that since the objective is to salvage the individual for society rather than inflict undue cruelty, a reduction in the sentence was justified.

The Court concluded that a sentence of four months' RI, rather than the original two years, would meet the ends of justice.

The substantive sentence was reduced from two years RI to four months RI.

The fine of Rs. 10,000 and the default imprisonment sentence were kept intact.

The Court further ordered that the Appellant’s total custody period (approximately 80 days) be set off against the modified four-month sentence.