Substantive Sentence Reduced for Possession of Intermediate Quantity NDPS Substance Based on Reformative Principles and Proportionately

On September 13, 2017, the appellant was apprehended by police near Lal Masjid, Bhopal, after attempting to flee. A search conducted before panch witnesses led to the recovery of 250 grams of Charas.

Following an investigation, the appellant was tried and convicted by the Special Judge, NDPS, Bhopal, on August 30, 2025, in case SC NDPS/48/2017. The Trial Court sentenced him to two years and six months of rigorous imprisonment (RI) and a fine of ₹7,000.

The appellant filed this appeal challenging the judgment, though during proceedings, the counsel narrowed the challenge specifically to the quantum of sentence, citing that the appellant had already served approximately one year and two months of incarceration.

1. Whether the substantive sentence awarded by the Trial Court should be reduced based on mitigating factors such as the quantity of the contraband, the period of incarceration already undergone, and the lack of criminal antecedents.

The Court applied Section 8(C) read with Section 20(B)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, which penalizes the possession of intermediate quantities of cannabis.

Administratively, the appeal was considered under Section 415(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, and Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973.

The Court relied on the sentencing principle that punishment must be proportionate to the offense and reformative in nature.

The Court affirmed the conviction, noting it was based on a proper appreciation of evidence.

However, in evaluating the sentence, the Court observed that the seized quantity (250 grams of Charas) was relatively small and the appellant had no prior criminal record.

The Court determined that the appellant had already served a significant portion (14 months) of the original 30-month sentence. Consequently, applying the doctrine of proportionality, the Court found that the interests of justice would be met by reducing the term of imprisonment while simultaneously increasing the financial penalty to serve as a deterrent.

The court enhanced the fine from ₹7,000 to ₹20,000, with a direction to deposit the balance within two months or undergo the default sentence prescribed by the Trial Court. The appellant is to be released upon completion of the modified term if not required in other cases.