2020 (12) TMI 139 - SC - Indian Laws

Smuggling - Ganja - appellant was found to be in possession of 6.300 kilogram of Ganja - within commercial quantity or not - HELD THAT - When the quantity/Ganja recovered from the appellant was 6.300 kilogram, which is between small quantity and commercial quantity and considering the fact that the maximum punishment for such offence is 10 years rigorous imprisonment, out of which the appellant has already undergone six years rigorous imprisonment, we allow the present appeal in part and modify the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court, confirmed by the High Court, to the extent of imposing the sentence of six years rigorous imprisonment in place of ten years rigorous imprisonment as imposed by the learned trial Court and confirmed by the High Court. Rest of the judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court, confirmed by the High Court, is hereby confirmed. Appeal allowed in part.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in preferring the appeal, quantum of sentence modification.

Delay in Preferring the Appeal:
The Supreme Court condoned the delay in preferring the appeal after hearing the advocates for both parties. The appellant challenged the judgment of the High Court that confirmed his conviction under the NDPS Act for possession of Ganja. The appellant sought modification of the sentence due to the quantity of Ganja being between small and commercial quantities. The appellant had already served six years of the ten-year sentence. The State opposed modifying the sentence, citing aggravating factors and the seriousness of the offense. The Court considered the quantity of Ganja and the fact that the appellant had already served six years of imprisonment. The Court allowed the appeal in part, modifying the sentence to six years of rigorous imprisonment instead of ten, while confirming the rest of the judgment.

Quantum of Sentence Modification:
The appellant was convicted under the NDPS Act for possession of 6.300 kilograms of Ganja, which falls between small and commercial quantities. The appellant had already served six years of the ten-year sentence imposed by the trial court and confirmed by the High Court. The appellant requested a modification of the sentence based on his age, lack of prior convictions, family responsibilities, and the quantity of Ganja involved. The State opposed modifying the sentence, arguing for the maximum punishment due to the seriousness of the offense. The Court considered the arguments of both parties and decided to modify the sentence to six years of rigorous imprisonment, taking into account the quantity of Ganja and the time already served by the appellant. The rest of the trial court's judgment, confirmed by the High Court, was upheld.