Summary
The Supreme Court upheld fifteen years’ rigorous imprisonment and a Rs2 lakh fine for possession and sale involving one kilogram of heroin. Section 32B does not confine above-minimum NDPS sentences to its listed aggravating factors; the quantity of contraband is independently relevant. The courts had considered the mitigation, and the accused was not shown to be merely an uninvolved carrier. The appeal was limited to sentence because interference with conviction had already been refused.
Issues
- Whether an above-minimum NDPS sentence requires one of the specifically enumerated section 32B factors.
- Whether the fifteen-year sentence should be reduced on the facts.
Provisions considered
- Section 32B, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985Its listed aggravating factors are additional, not exhaustive; other relevant factors, including quantity, can justify an above-minimum sentence. (¶ 6-6.1)
- Section 21(c), Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985The commercial-quantity sentencing range allowed the fifteen-year imprisonment and Rs2 lakh fine imposed here. (¶¶ 6, 6.2-6.4)
Held
- Notice was confined to sentence after the Court had declined interference with conviction. The appeal did not reopen the legality of the conviction. (¶ 2)
- The words permitting consideration of such factors as the court deems fit preserve discretion beyond clauses (a) to (f) of section 32B. Quantity may justify a higher-than-minimum sentence even though not expressly listed; the factor considered must be relevant. (¶ 6-6.1)
- The accused possessed one kilogram of heroin, four times the commercial-quantity threshold discussed in the case, and sold it to the informant. Failure to apprehend the main supplier did not require minimum punishment, and a knowing carrier of a large commercial quantity could also receive more than the minimum. (¶ 6.3-6.4)
- The trial court had considered poverty, family responsibility and first-offender status in imposing fifteen rather than twenty years. On these facts, the societal impact and quantity supported the sentence, and the asserted mitigation did not warrant reduction. (¶¶ 6.2, 7)
Result
Appeal dismissed; fifteen years’ rigorous imprisonment, Rs2 lakh fine and the one-year default imprisonment left undisturbed.