Substantive sentence for intermediate quantity NDPS offence reduced to period undergone citing reformative principles.

On February 27, 2024, acting on secret information, police apprehended the Appellant at Budhwari Bazaar, Korba, and recovered 1.5 kilograms of ganja and Rs. 650/- from his possession

The prosecution examined nine witnesses and submitted 63 documents, including an FSL report confirming the substance as 'Ganja'

On January 9, 2026, the Special Judge (NDPS Act), Korba, convicted the Appellant under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, sentencing him to two years of Rigorous Imprisonment (RI) and a fine of Rs. 10,000/-

The Appellant challenged the judgment but, during the hearing, confined his plea to the reduction of the sentence, noting he had already served three months and 12 days of the term

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

2. Whether the sentence of two years RI should be reduced to the period already undergone based on the reformative theory of punishment and the absence of a minimum mandatory sentence

Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, which prescribes punishment for the possession of an intermediate quantity of cannabis without a statutory minimum sentence

Section 415(2) of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023

The court further relied on the reformative principles established in Mohammad Giasuddin v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1977) 3 SCC 287, which emphasizes that the goal of sentencing should be rehabilitation and reshaping the offender rather than mere retribution

The Court affirmed the conviction, noting that the testimonies of the Investigating Officer (PW-9) and the TI (PW-6), corroborated by the FSL report (Ex.P-62), conclusively proved the possession of contraband

Regarding the sentence, the Court observed that Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act does not mandate a minimum term of imprisonment

Applying the reformative approach from Mohammad Giasuddin, the Court evaluated several mitigating factors: the Appellant had no prior criminal antecedents, the quantity seized was relatively small, he had already undergone over three months of incarceration, and he had endured the mental agony of a protracted trial

The Court reasoned that given these circumstances, further incarceration would be unnecessary for the purpose of social defense or rehabilitation

The fine of Rs. 10,000/- and the default imprisonment stipulation remained intact

The Court ordered the Appellant’s immediate release from jail, provided he is not required in any other case