Sentence for intermediate quantity of contraband reduced to period already undergone while affirming conviction.

On July 28, 2017, police received secret information that two individuals disguised as sadhus were carrying contraband at the Charama Bus Stand

Upon interception, the police recovered 9 kg 600 grams of ganja from Appellant No. 1 (Vijendra Lodhi) and 8 kg 560 grams from Appellant No. 2 (Kanshi Prasad Lodhi)

Following a trial where 12 prosecution witnesses were examined, the Special Judge (NDPS Act), Kanker, convicted the appellants under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, sentencing them to five years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹10,000 each

The appellants challenged the conviction on grounds of non-compliance with mandatory procedural safeguards under the NDPS Act and the hostility of independent witnesses

1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants were in conscious possession of contraband ganja?

2. Whether there was strict compliance with the mandatory provisions of Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act?

3. Whether the conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court require interference?

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

Section 42 (power of entry, search, and seizure) and Section 50 (conditions for personal search) of the NDPS Act

The Court relied on State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999), affirming that Section 50 compliance is mandatory

Karnail Singh v. State of Haryana (2009), which held that Section 42 compliance is mandatory but allows for some flexibility

The testimony of official witnesses cannot be discarded solely due to their status if it remains reliable despite the hostility of independent witnesses

The High Court found the testimonies of the Investigating Officer and the raiding party to be consistent and cogent regarding the recovery of the contraband

It held that the hostility of independent panch witnesses does not automatically demolish the prosecution's case when official witnesses are deemed reliable and corroborated by the FSL report

While the defense pointed out procedural lapses, the Court determined that substantial compliance was met and no prejudice was caused to the accused

While the conviction was well-founded on the evidence of "conscious possession," the record showed "procedural infirmities" and a lack of prior criminal antecedents

Given that the quantity was intermediate and the appellants had already served approximately one year and one month in jail, the Court found that the ends of justice would be served by modifying the sentence

The appeal was partly allowed regarding the quantum of punishment; the substantive sentence of five years was reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by the appellants

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

The appellants, being on bail, were not required to surrender subject to the payment of the fine