Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition challenging the petitioner’s conviction under Section 21(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The apex court declined to interfere with the High Court’s judgment that affirmed the conviction but reduced the sentence from 12 years to 10 years. However, the Court strongly criticised the High Court’s interpretation of Section 32-B of the NDPS Act, declaring that “quantity of substance is a relevant factor” and that the trial court can impose punishment above the minimum even without referring to the factors listed in Section 32-B(a) to (f).
Facts
The petitioner was tried before the Special Judge (NDPS Act) at Surguja, Chhattisgarh, in Special Criminal (NDPS) Case No. 04/2019 for possession of psychotropic substances. On 20 September 2018, acting on specific intelligence, the police seized 236 bottles of cough syrup containing Codeine Phosphate—comprising 143 vials of R.C. Kuff, 70 vials of Codectus, and 23 vials of Elderqurex—from the petitioner and a co-accused.
The trial court found the petitioner guilty under Section 21(c) of the NDPS Act and sentenced him to 12 years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of ₹1,00,000. On appeal, the Chhattisgarh High Court upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence to 10 years, citing a lack of special reasons by the trial court for imposing a higher sentence under Section 32-B of the Act.
Issues
- Whether the trial court was required to provide specific reasons under Section 32-B of the NDPS Act to impose a sentence higher than the statutory minimum.
- Whether the High Court erred in interpreting Section 32-B as mandating exclusive reliance on its enumerated factors (a) to (f) while enhancing the sentence.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner, represented through legal aid, argued that the seizure was fundamentally flawed and suffered from multiple procedural defects. It was contended that since the High Court itself found no special reason to sustain the enhanced 12-year sentence imposed by the trial court, the conviction should be overturned or at least the sentence reduced further.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State supported the trial court’s decision and contended that the recovery of a large quantity of contraband justified the sentence imposed. It maintained that the trial court acted within its discretion, especially considering the commercial quantity involved.
Analysis of the Law
The Supreme Court meticulously examined Section 32-B of the NDPS Act, which provides that while determining punishment above the minimum, courts “may, in addition to such factors as it may deem fit,” consider the enumerated aggravating circumstances in clauses (a) to (f). Thus, the provision does not limit sentencing discretion to only those factors.
Precedent Analysis
The Court relied extensively on its prior ruling in Rafiq Qureshi v. Narcotic Control Bureau [(2019) 6 SCC 492], which clarified that:
- Section 32-B does not restrict courts to only the listed aggravating factors.
- The quantity of the narcotic substance is a relevant consideration, even if not enumerated in Section 32-B(a) to (f).
- Courts must not read into the statute limitations that do not exist.
Further support was drawn from Sakshi v. Union of India [(2004) 5 SCC 518], which warned against judicial insertion of words into statutory text, and Gurdev Singh v. State of Punjab [(2021) 6 SCC 558], which reaffirmed that sentencing discretion under Section 32-B is broad and includes unlisted factors like quantity.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court categorically rejected the High Court’s understanding that the absence of special reasons under Section 32-B necessarily precludes sentencing beyond the statutory minimum. It held:
“Section 32-B provides that the court may, in addition to various relevant factors, take into account the factors as prescribed in Clauses (a) to (f)… Therefore, in a given case, the trial court may not find it necessary to consider the factors as prescribed.”
Reiterating Rafiq Qureshi, the Court stated that a higher sentence based on quantity of contraband is not only permissible but entirely valid under the law:
“The quantity of substance with which an accused is charged is a relevant factor… Clauses (a) to (f) do not enumerate any factor regarding quantity.”
It thus concluded that the High Court’s approach effectively treated the minimum sentence as the maximum, which was a fundamental error in statutory interpretation.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition, upheld the conviction, and declined to interfere with the High Court’s sentence reduction from 12 years to 10 years. However, it forcefully corrected the High Court’s misreading of Section 32-B of the NDPS Act:
“The minimum sentence should not be considered as the maximum sentence.”
Although the Court refrained from restoring the higher sentence due to the petitioner’s legal aid status and incarceration status, it clarified the broader legal position for future reference.
Implications
This judgment clarifies the legal position that trial courts are not bound to assign special reasons under Section 32-B of the NDPS Act to award sentences above the minimum. The discretion is preserved, and courts can consider relevant factors—including quantity of contraband—even if not enumerated. The ruling prevents misapplication of Section 32-B and reaffirms judicial discretion in sentencing under the NDPS Act.
Referred Judgments and Their Significance
- Rafiq Qureshi v. NCB [(2019) 6 SCC 492] – Held that Section 32-B does not restrict court’s discretion; quantity of substance is a valid sentencing factor.
- Sakshi v. Union of India [(2004) 5 SCC 518] – Emphasized that courts must interpret statutes by what is said, not by inserting words.
- Gurdev Singh v. State of Punjab [(2021) 6 SCC 558] – Clarified that courts may consider factors “as it may deem fit” in addition to those under Section 32-B when imposing higher punishment.
FAQs
Q1. Can a trial court impose a sentence higher than the minimum under NDPS without relying on Section 32-B factors?
Yes. The Supreme Court held that courts may rely on other relevant factors such as the quantity of the substance to impose higher sentences.
Q2. Is the quantity of contraband a valid factor for enhancing punishment under the NDPS Act?
Yes. The Court clarified that quantity, although not listed under Section 32-B(a)-(f), is a relevant and valid factor for sentencing beyond the minimum.
Q3. What did the Court say about the High Court’s sentence reduction?
While disagreeing with the High Court’s interpretation of Section 32-B, the Supreme Court chose not to interfere with the reduced sentence due to the petitioner’s circumstances.
