Sentence for possession of intermediate quantity of contraband reduced to period already undergone with enhanced fine.

The appellant was convicted by the Special Judge, NDPS Act, Narsinghpur, for being in possession of 6 kg of contraband (Ganja).

Following the registration of FIR Crime No. 685/2023 at Police Station Gadarwara and subsequent trial, she was sentenced to three years of Rigorous Imprisonment (RI) and a fine of ₹10,000.

The appellant challenged this judgment, primarily seeking a reduction in sentence rather than contesting the conviction on merits.

The appellant, aged 23, had already undergone approximately 11 months and 17 days of incarceration and was unable to avail a previous temporary suspension of sentence due to financial constraints following her father's death.

1. Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 8/20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act is sustainable based on the evidence on record.

2. Whether the jail sentence awarded to the appellant can be reduced to the period already undergone, subject to an enhancement of the fine.

The court primarily applied Section 8/20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, which penalizes the possession of "intermediate quantities" of cannabis.

Procedurally, the court exercised its appellate jurisdiction under Section 415(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 / Section 374(2) of the CrPC, 1973.

The court also adhered to the principle that an appellate court is under a legal obligation to independently scrutinize the correctness of a conviction even if the appellant only prays for a reduction in sentence.

The Court first performed an independent reappraisal of the evidence to ensure the sanctity of the conviction, finding that the prosecution's case was corroborated by witness testimony and material evidence, thus affirming the Trial Court's well-reasoned findings of guilt.

Regarding the quantum of sentence, the Court took into account the appellant's young age (23 years), her lack of criminal antecedents, and the specific mitigating circumstance that she had served over 11 months in custody and was unable to afford bail even when granted temporary suspension.

The Court reasoned that the "ends of justice" would be better served by substituting the remaining jail term with a significant financial penalty.

The jail sentence was reduced to the period already undergone. However, the fine was significantly enhanced from ₹10,000 to ₹1,00,000 (Rupees One Lac), to be deposited within two months. In default of the enhanced fine, the appellant must serve the original jail sentence. The Court ordered the appellant’s immediate release if not required in other cases.