2017 (2) TMI 1326 - SC - Indian Laws

Offence u/s 8(c), 20(b) (ii) read with Section 31A of the NDPS Act - tenure of punishment - Held that - In the instant case, the High Court has given thirty years rigorous imprisonment to the appellant on the assessment that the appellant should be given maximum punishment as prescribed i.e. twenty years and thereafter extending it to one and one-half times of the said term - the sentence should be more than minimum and ends of justice would be sub-served if the appellant is given the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of 16 years. The appellant is of 65 years of age and suffering from various ailments - the sentence given in Gujarat case as well as Bombay case would run concurrently - Insofar as fine of ₹ 1 lakh which is imposed by the Trial Court in Gujarat case is concerned, the same would remain - However, as far as fine of ₹ 3 lakhs in Bombay case is concerned, the same is reduced to ₹ 2 Lakhs. Since the amount of fine is to be remitted to Narcotic Control Bureau, the appellant is permitted to pay the total fine of ₹ 3 lakhs (Rs.1 lakh ₹ 2 lakhs) with the Narcotic Control Bureau, Special Judge, Bombay. Appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against conviction and sentence under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
2. Validity of confessional statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act.
3. Interpretation of Section 31 of the NDPS Act regarding enhanced punishment for subsequent offences.
4. Sentencing discretion of the court considering previous conviction and age of the appellant.

Issue 1: Appeal against Conviction and Sentence:
The appellant was charged under Sections 8(c), 20(b), and 29 of the NDPS Act in two separate cases from Gujarat and Bombay. The Gujarat case resulted in a ten-year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ?1 lakh, upheld by the High Court. In the Bombay case, the appellant was initially sentenced to death, which was later reduced to 30 years imprisonment and a fine of ?3 lakhs. The Supreme Court found no interference necessary in the conviction but adjusted the sentencing based on Section 31 of the NDPS Act.

Issue 2: Validity of Confessional Statement:
The appellant challenged the validity of his confessional statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, arguing it was not voluntary and was taken in Hindi instead of Urdu. The Supreme Court upheld the lower courts' findings that the statement was voluntary, as the appellant did not retract it, understood Hindi, and acknowledged knowing the language. The court found no fault in treating the statement as voluntary.

Issue 3: Interpretation of Section 31 of the NDPS Act:
Section 31 provides for enhanced punishment for subsequent offences, considering previous convictions. The High Court had awarded 30 years imprisonment to the appellant, applying the maximum punishment and multiplier. The Supreme Court, after due consideration, adjusted the sentence to 16 years, considering the minimum prescribed term of 10 years and the appellant's age and health conditions.

Issue 4: Sentencing Discretion:
The Supreme Court exercised its sentencing discretion, directing that the sentences in the Gujarat and Bombay cases run concurrently. The fine in the Gujarat case of ?1 lakh remained, while in the Bombay case, it was reduced to ?2 lakhs. The appellant was permitted to pay the total fine of ?3 lakhs to the Narcotic Control Bureau, Special Judge, Bombay.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court disposed of the appeals, maintaining the convictions but adjusting the sentences based on the provisions of the NDPS Act and considering the circumstances of the appellant.