Sentencing of a first-time convict under NDPS Act may be reduced to a reformative period already undergone.

On June 4, 2024, police acted on secret information regarding the illegal sale of contraband at a bus stand in Korba.

The appellant was intercepted while riding an Activa, and 1.138 kg of Ganja was seized from his possession.

Following an investigation and trial, the Special Judge (NDPS Act), Korba, convicted the appellant on November 20, 2025.

The appellant challenged this judgment, primarily seeking a reduction in sentence rather than contesting the conviction, noting he had already served over five months in custody and was a graduate employed in a private job.

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

2. Whether the sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment (RI) should be modified to the period already undergone based on reformative sentencing principles.

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

Procedurally, the appeal was filed under Section 415(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

Regarding sentencing, the Court relied on the reformative theory of punishment as propounded in Mohammad Giasuddin v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1977) 3 SCC 287, which emphasizes that the goal of penology is rehabilitation and salvation of the individual for society rather than retribution or injury.

The Court affirmed the conviction, noting that the testimonies of thirteen prosecution witnesses and the FSL report (Ex. P-80) conclusively established the seizure of Ganja from the appellant.

In evaluating the sentence, the Court balanced the appellant's criminal antecedents (three previous cases, including two under the NDPS Act) against his personal circumstances, specifically his educational background (graduate) and employment.

Applying the "therapeutic" outlook from Mohammad Giasuddin, the Court reasoned that while the conviction must stand, the two-year sentence was excessive given the specific facts.

The Court determined that reducing the substantive prison term while significantly increasing the financial penalty would better serve the interests of justice and reformation.

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

Conversely, the fine was enhanced from Rs. 1,000 to Rs. 10,000, with a default sentence of four months RI.

The Court directed that the appellant's total period of custody (5 months and 13 days) be set off against the new six-month sentence.

The appeal was allowed in part.