Substantive sentence reduced to period undergone upon enhancement of fine for NDPS and Excise Act convictions.

Following a trial in the Court of Special Judge (NDPS Act), Raisen (SC NDPS No. 05/2024), the appellant was convicted on September 24, 2025.

He was sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment under the NDPS Act and two years under the M.P. Excise Act.

The appellant was intercepted by police on April 7, 2024, while traveling in a car (Registration No. MP-17-B-8243). A search resulted in the recovery of 4 kg of ganja (cannabis) from his exclusive possession and 54 bulk liters of illicit liquor from the joint possession of the appellant and a co-accused.

The appellant challenged the sentence, having already served 2 years, 3 months, and 13 days in custody.

1. Whether the conviction of the appellant under the NDPS Act and M.P. Excise Act was legally sustainable based on the evidence on record.

2. Whether the substantive sentence of imprisonment could be reduced to the period already undergone, given the appellant’s status as a first-time offender.

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

It also applied Section 34(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Excise Act, governing the unlawful possession of liquor.

The appeal was entertained under Section 415 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

The Court exercised its judicial discretion regarding the quantum of sentence, balancing the period of incarceration already served against the nature of the offense and the offender's criminal history.

The Court first performed an independent review of the oral and documentary evidence despite the appellant not challenging the conviction on merits. It found no infirmity in the Trial Court's findings, affirming that the prosecution had proved the recovery and possession beyond reasonable doubt.

Regarding the sentence, the Court noted that the appellant had already undergone more than two years of incarceration. Taking into account that the appellant was not a habitual offender or a hardened criminal, and acknowledging the Trial Court's own observation that this was his first offense, the Court reasoned that the ends of justice would be met by a "period already undergone" sentence.

To balance this reduction, the Court deemed it appropriate to significantly enhance the fine amounts for both offenses to maintain a deterrent effect.

The Court ordered the appellant’s release upon payment of the enhanced fines, with default stipulations remaining in place.