Substantive sentence reduced to period already undergone considering quantity of contraband and duration of custody.

On January 11, 2015, G.R.P. Dongargarh received secret information regarding a suspect carrying cannabis at Dongargarh Railway Station

Upon search, 2kg of cannabis (ganja) was seized from the appellant’s bag after complying with the notice requirements under Section 50 of the NDPS Act

The prosecution examined 12 witnesses and 44 documents to establish the charge

On May 19, 2016, the Special Judge (NDPS Act), Rajnandgaon, convicted the appellant under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, sentencing him to 5 years of Rigorous Imprisonment (R.I.) and a fine of ₹20,000

The appellant challenged this judgment, though during the appeal, the counsel limited the argument solely to the reduction of the sentence, noting the appellant had already served approximately 1 year and 9 months

1. Whether the mandatory procedural requirements for search and seizure under the NDPS Act were complied with by the Investigating Officer

2. Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) was sustainable based on the evidence and forensic reports

3. Whether the sentence of 5 years R.I. should be reduced to the period already undergone given the circumstances and quantity of the contraband

Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, which provides the punishment for contravention in relation to intermediate quantities of cannabis

The Court further scrutinized the mandatory procedural safeguards under Section 42 (power of entry, search, and seizure without warrant), Section 52-A(3) (disposal/certification of seized drugs), and Section 55 (police to take charge of articles seized) of the NDPS Act

The Court perused the trial records and confirmed that the Investigating Officer had strictly adhered to the procedural mandates of Sections 42, 52-A(3), and 55 of the NDPS Act

The Regional Forensic Science Laboratory report corroborated the prosecution's case by confirming that the seized samples tested positive for cannabis

Consequently, the Court found no illegality in the Trial Court’s findings regarding the conviction

Regarding the quantum of sentence, the Court observed that the seized quantity was 2kg and the appellant had been embroiled in litigation since 2015, having already served 21 months of his 60-month sentence

Balancing the ends of justice with the specific facts of the case, the Court reasoned that while the conviction must be upheld, the term of imprisonment could be adjusted to the time already served

The Court ordered that the jail sentence be reduced to the period already undergone (approximately 1 year and 9 months)

The Court maintained the fine of ₹20,000; in default of payment of the fine, the appellant is required to undergo the additional one-year R.I. as originally stipulated by the Trial Court