NDPS Act | S.32B Doesn't Restrict Trial Court's Power To Impose Sentence Higher Than Statutory Minimum: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, on 17 July, clarified that Section 32B(factors to be taken into account for imposing higher than the minimum punishment) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ("NDPS Act") does not restrict the trial court's power in awarding a sentence higher than the minimum of ten years. To state briefly, the Appellant was convicted along with another accused by the Special Judge (NDPS) under Section 21(c) of the NDPS Act for being in possession of 236 vials of various cough syrups containing Codeine Phosphate, a psychotropic substance. He was sentenced to 12 years of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.1,00,000. In appeal, while affirming the conviction, the Chhattisgarh High Court reduced the sentence to 10 years. Relying upon the Supreme Court's decision in Rafiq Qureshi vs. Narcotic Control Bureau Eastern Zonal Unit (2019), the High Court said that at the time of imposing sentence, the trial court needs to keep in mind the aggravating factors as provided in Clauses (a) to (f) of Section 32-B respectively. In the absence of such factors, it can't impose a higher sentence than the prescribed minimum.Against this, the Appellant, through Advocate on Record Ashish Pandey, approached the Supreme Court arguing that the entire seizure was vitiated as the same suffered from serious infirmities.A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan, however, dismissed the SLP, finding no good reason to interfere with it. But it clarified that the High Court misconstrued Section 32B as restricting the trial court's power in imposing a sentence beyond the minimum in the absence of factors listed therein. It said: "We are afraid the understanding of the High Court is not correct. Section 32-B provides that the court, in addition to various relevant factors, may also 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 in Section 32-B. Having regard to the quantity of the contraband, the nature of the narcotic or the psychotropic substance, as the case may be, the antecedents, if any, etc., may deem fit to impose punishment which can be more than the minimum. In such circumstances, there was no good reason for the High Court to reduce the sentence from 12 years to 10 years relying on Rafiq Qureshi (supra). The dictum as laid down in Rafiq Qureshi (supra) has not been understood in its true perspective."The Court added that in Raqif Qureshi, it clarified that the language of Section 32B inherently preserves the Court's discretion to consider other relevant factors beyond those listed, specifically the quantity of the narcotic substance was deemed a pertinent factor warranting a sentence higher than the statutory minimum, despite the absence of any enumerated aggravating factors. Case Details: NARAYAN DAS v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH|SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO. OF 2025 [Diary No. 30825/2025]Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 729Click Here To Read Order

NDPS Act | S.32B Doesn't Restrict Trial Court's Power To Impose Sentence Higher Than Statutory Minimum: Supreme Court

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

NDPS Act | S.32B Doesn't Restrict Trial Court's Power To Impose Sentence Higher Than Statutory Minimum: Supreme Court

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers