Sentence for intermediate quantity under NDPS Act reduced to period already undergone.

On May 16, 2015, acting on a tip-off, an Excise Sub-Inspector (PW-03) intercepted the appellant at the Kudmura forest barrier.

A search of a plastic bag carried by the appellant revealed 5 kilograms of a substance later confirmed by the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) to be marijuana (ganja).

On October 26, 2016, the Special Judge (NDPS), Korba, convicted the appellant under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, sentencing him to five years of Rigorous Imprisonment (RI) and a fine of ₹10,000.

The appellant served a portion of his sentence (approximately 21 months) before being granted bail in February 2017.

In this appeal, the appellant’s counsel did not challenge the conviction on merits but limited the prayer to a reduction of the sentence to the period already undergone.

1. Whether the prosecution established the appellant's conscious possession of the contraband in compliance with the statutory safeguards of the NDPS Act.

2. Whether the sentence of five years RI should be reduced to the period already undergone, considering the quantity seized was less than commercial and ten years had elapsed since the incident.

The court primarily applied 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.

It emphasized compliance with Section 42 (recording and communicating secret information) and Sections 52 and 55 (disposal and custody of seized articles).

The court noted that Section 50 (conditions for personal search) was not applicable as the recovery was from a bag, not the person.

It applied the established principle that the testimony of official witnesses (Excise/Police) is reliable even if independent witnesses do not support the prosecution, provided the official testimony is cogent and consistent.

The court found the testimony of the seizing officer (PW-03) and the supporting staff (PW-05) to be consistent and credible regarding the apprehension, seizure, and sampling of the 5kg of ganja.

Documentary evidence, including the seizure memo and the FSL report (Ex. P/26), successfully established the chain of custody.

Although independent witnesses turned hostile, the court ruled that the reliable versions of the official witnesses were sufficient for conviction.

Regarding the sentence, the court observed that 5kg is significantly below the "commercial quantity" threshold, meaning no mandatory minimum sentence applied.

It considered mitigating factors, including the lack of criminal antecedents, the fact that the appellant had already undergone nearly two years of jail time, and the significant delay (over 10 years) since the original incident in 2015.

It held that the ends of justice would be met by reducing the substantive sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone by the appellant, while maintaining the fine of ₹10,000 and the default sentence.

The appellant was ordered to remain on bail for six months pursuant to Section 437A of the CrPC (now Section 481 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023).