Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2022 (8) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (8) TMI 553 - SC - Indian LawsSmuggling - Ganja (Cannabis) - framing of charges u/s 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act - acquittal of the accused - HELD THAT - Looking into the nature of offence which has been committed by the appellant, there should be no leniency in such matters, particularly, when the offence has been proved against her beyond doubt and conviction is upheld by the High Court under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act. The offences under the NDPS Act are very serious in nature and against the society at large and no discretion is to be exercised in favour of such accused who are indulged in such offences under the Act. It is a menace to the society, no leniency should be shown to the accused persons who are found guilty under the NDPS Act. But while upholding the same, this Court cannot be oblivious of the other facts and circumstances as projected in the present case that the old illiterate lady from rural background, who was senior citizen at the time of alleged incident, was residing in that house along with her husband and two grown up children who may be into illegal trade but that the prosecution failed to examine and taking note of the procedural compliance as contemplated under Sections 42, 50 and 55 of the NDPS Act, held the appellant guilty for the reason that she was residing in that house but at the same time, this fact was completely ignored that the other coaccused were also residing in the same house and what was their trade, and who were those persons who were involved into the illegal trade providing supplies of psychotropic substances, prosecution has never cared to examine. While upholding conviction of the appellant, and considering the old age of the accused appellant, who is a poor illiterate lady completely unaware of the consequences, we consider it appropriate that the sentence of the accused appellant be reduced to 12 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1 lakh and in default, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment of six months which shall meet the ends of justice - Appeal disposed off.
Issues involved:
1. Conviction under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act 2. Sentencing of the appellant 3. Consideration of factors for imposing sentence higher than the minimum prescribed 4. Examination of procedural compliance under Sections 42, 50, and 55 of the NDPS Act 5. Appeal against the judgment and order dated 26th February, 2018 Issue 1: Conviction under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act The appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act for possessing a commercial quantity of illegal 'Ganja' along with her two children. The prosecution's case was based on the recovery of cannabis from the appellant's house, leading to charges against her and other co-accused. The trial court found the appellant guilty while acquitting the other co-accused. The High Court upheld the conviction based on the recovery of the substance from the appellant's residence, disregarding her illiteracy and senior citizen status. Issue 2: Sentencing of the appellant The trial court sentenced the appellant to 15 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1 lakh, with an additional three years of imprisonment in case of default. The appellant, being an illiterate senior citizen with no criminal history, appealed against the severity of the sentence. The Supreme Court acknowledged the seriousness of NDPS offences but considered the appellant's background and reduced her sentence to 12 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1 lakh, with a default provision of six months of imprisonment. Issue 3: Consideration of factors for imposing a higher sentence The Supreme Court noted that the trial court and the High Court failed to consider the factors required for imposing a sentence higher than the minimum prescribed under Section 32B of the NDPS Act. While emphasizing the gravity of NDPS offences, the Court balanced this with the appellant's background and lack of criminal record, leading to a reduction in the sentence. Issue 4: Examination of procedural compliance under Sections 42, 50, and 55 of the NDPS Act The Court highlighted the lack of examination of procedural compliance under Sections 42, 50, and 55 of the NDPS Act in the case. It noted that the prosecution did not adequately address the involvement of other co-accused residing in the same house or their role in the illegal trade, focusing solely on the appellant's presence in the house during the recovery of the substance. Issue 5: Appeal against the judgment and order dated 26th February, 2018 The appellant's appeal against the judgment and order dated 26th February, 2018, was based on the severity of the sentence imposed despite her background as an illiterate senior citizen with no criminal record. The Supreme Court modified the sentence, taking into account the appellant's circumstances and reduced it to 12 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1 lakh, ensuring that justice was served while considering the appellant's age and background.
|