2019 (5) TMI 495 - SC - Indian Laws

Quantum of punishment - conviction and sentence under Section 21(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - appellant submits that appellant could not have been awarded sentence of more than ten years which is the minimum sentence provided for offence under Section 21(c), since the Court below did not advert to Section 32B of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. HELD THAT - A perusal of different provisions of Act, 1985 indicates that various sections provide for different punishments. In Section 21(c) noticed above the provision provides that rigorous imprisonment shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to twenty years and shall also be liable to fine . In various other sections the punishments are like Section 15(a) which may extend to one year or with fine as in Section 16 which may extend to ten years or with fine. Thus, there are few provisions in which minimum punishment and maximum punishment have been provided for. The different provisions, however, do not indicate any legislative policy regarding sentencing especially when there is minimum and maximum punishment is prescribed, how to peg the punishment. Clauses (a) to (f) as enumerated in Section 32B do not enumerate any factor regarding quantity of substance as a factor for determining the punishment. In the event the Court takes into consideration the magnitude of quantity with regard to which an accused is convicted the said factor is relevant factor and the Court cannot be said to have committed an error when taking into consideration any such factor, higher than the minimum term of punishment is awarded. The punishment awarded by the trial court of a sentence higher than the minimum relying on the quantity of substance cannot be faulted even though the Court had not adverted to the factors mentioned in clauses (a) to (b) as enumerated under Section 32B. However, when taking any factor into consideration other than the factors enumerated in Section 32B, (a) to (f), the Court imposes a punishment higher than the minimum sentence, it can be examined by higher Courts as to whether factor taken into consideration by the Court is a relevant factor or not. Thus in a case where Court imposes a punishment higher than minimum relying on a irrelevant factor and no other factor as enumerated in Section 32B(a to f) are present award of sentence higher than minimum can be interfered with. The punishment higher than the minimum is upheld, however the ends of justice will be sub-served in reducing the sentence from 16 years to 12 years - appeal allowed in part.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of Section 32B of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
2. Whether the trial court could have awarded punishment higher than the minimum term of imprisonment in the absence of any factors enumerated in Section 32B.
3. Whether the trial court could consider factors other than those mentioned in Section 32B clauses (a) to (f) while imposing a punishment higher than the minimum term of imprisonment.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Interpretation of Section 32B of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985:
The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, specifically Section 21(c), prescribes a minimum and maximum term of imprisonment for certain offenses. The insertion of Section 32B by Act 9 of 2001 aimed to rationalize the sentencing structure. Section 32B lists factors (a) to (f) that courts may consider for imposing a punishment higher than the minimum term of imprisonment. The statutory language of Section 32B states that the court may consider these factors "in addition to such factors as it may deem fit," indicating that the court's discretion is not limited to the enumerated factors.

2. Whether the trial court could have awarded punishment higher than the minimum term of imprisonment in the absence of any factors enumerated in Section 32B:
The appellant's counsel argued that the trial court could not impose a punishment higher than the minimum term of imprisonment without identifying any factors from clauses (a) to (f) of Section 32B. The respondent's counsel, however, contended that the court is not compelled to limit its consideration to these factors alone. The Supreme Court agreed with the latter view, stating that the statutory scheme allows the court to consider any relevant factors it deems fit, in addition to those enumerated in Section 32B. Thus, the trial court's discretion to impose a higher punishment is not confined solely to the listed factors.

3. Whether the trial court could consider factors other than those mentioned in Section 32B clauses (a) to (f) while imposing a punishment higher than the minimum term of imprisonment:
The Supreme Court clarified that the court's discretion to consider factors beyond those enumerated in Section 32B is not fettered. For instance, the quantity of the substance involved can be a relevant factor in determining the quantum of punishment. The court held that if the quantity of the drug is significantly higher than the commercial quantity, it justifies a punishment higher than the minimum term. The Supreme Court referenced previous judgments, including those from the Allahabad High Court, which supported the view that the court could consider a broader range of factors.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the trial court and the High Court were justified in awarding a punishment higher than the minimum term based on the quantity of the drug involved. However, considering the appellant was merely a carrier, the Supreme Court reduced the sentence from 16 years to 12 years while maintaining the fine of ?2 lakh. The appeal was partly allowed to this extent.