Sentence Reduced to Period Undergone for Intermediate Quantity of Contraband Considering Lack of Criminal Antecedents.

The appellant was apprehended on April 5, 2025, near a cremation ground in Raipur following secret information received by the police.

Upon search, 8 grams of Diacetylmorphine (Heroin) were recovered from his possession.

The Trial Court (Special Judge, NDPS Act, Raipur) convicted the appellant under Section 21(B) of the NDPS Act, 1985, sentencing him to 5 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹50,000.

In the present appeal, the appellant did not challenge the conviction but sought a reduction in sentence, citing his age (29 years), his responsibility as a father to a 6-month-old child, the lack of criminal antecedents, and the fact that the quantity seized was only slightly above the "small quantity" threshold of 5 grams.

1. Whether the sentence of five years' rigorous imprisonment is excessive given the mitigating circumstances and the quantity of contraband seized.

2. Whether the principles of reformative justice warrant a reduction of the sentence to the period already undergone by the appellant.

The Court applied Section 21(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, which penalizes the possession of intermediate quantities of manufactured drugs.

The Court relied heavily on the reformative theory of punishment as articulated by the Supreme Court in Mohammad Giasuddin v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1977) 3 SCC 287, which holds that the objective of sentencing should be to rehabilitate and improve the offender rather than to merely inflict injury or "terrorem".

The Court affirmed the conviction based on the consistent testimonies of the Investigating Officer (PW-8) and several police witnesses (PW-1, PW-3, PW-4, and PW-5), finding no infirmity in the Trial Court's appreciation of evidence.

However, regarding the quantum of sentence, the Court noted several mitigating factors: the seized amount (8 grams) was only 3 grams above the statutory "small quantity" limit; the appellant was a young man with a dependent infant; and he had no prior criminal record of a similar nature.

Applying the logic from Mohammad Giasuddin, the Court reasoned that since the appellant had already served approximately 7 months and 8 days in custody, and the fine had been deposited, a therapeutic approach was more appropriate than a harsh, retributive incarceration.

It concluded that the ends of justice would be met by reducing the sentence to the period already served while maintaining the fine.

The appeal was partly allowed, reducing the five-year sentence to the term already undergone (7 months and 8 days). The fine of ₹50,000 and the default stipulation were affirmed. The Court ordered the appellant’s immediate release from jail, provided he is not required in any other case.