2015 (8) TMI 938 - HC - Customs

Appeal against Conviction Possession of controlled substance Appellant assailing order of trial court convicting him for offences under section 9A and 25A of NDPS Act, 1985 and sentencing to undergo rigorous imprisonment with fine Held that - appellant was admittedly carrying controlled substance when she was detained Also controlled substance was being carried in secret compartment of her luggage Supreme Court in case of Union of India vs. Kuldeep Singh 2003 (12) TMI 628 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA held that it is duty of every court to award proper sentence having regard to nature of offence and manner in which it was executed or committed Offence relating to narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances were more heinous than culpable homicide because latter affects only individual while former affects and leaves its deleterious impact on society In view of said observation, present court would fail in duty, if offenders such as appellant, were shown any leniency in matter of sentence Thus, impugned order of conviction upheld Decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Appeal under section 374 Cr.P.C. against the order on sentence passed by the Sessions Court under NDPS Act, 1985 for possession of a controlled substance. Plea for leniency based on personal circumstances. Comparison with previous cases for sentencing guidance. Consideration of societal impact and deterrence in sentencing.

Analysis:
The judgment deals with an appeal under section 374 Cr.P.C. challenging the sentence imposed by the Sessions Court under the NDPS Act, 1985. The appellant was convicted for offenses under section 9A and 25A of the NDPS Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and six months, along with a fine of Rs. 50,000. The appellant pleaded guilty to possessing 6.3 Kg of Ephedrine Hydrochloride, a controlled substance. The appellant's counsel sought leniency due to being a mother of three minor children residing in South Africa and requested release based on time served until the date of the appeal.

The appellant's counsel cited a previous case to support the leniency plea, where a similar offense resulted in a one-year sentence without enhancement. However, the Narcotics Control Bureau argued against leniency, referencing a Supreme Court decision and a UN report highlighting the societal impact of drug-related crimes. The judgment emphasized the duty of courts to impose appropriate sentences considering the nature of the offense, societal impact, and deterrence to prevent undermining public confidence in the justice system.

The judgment highlighted the seriousness of drug offenses, noting their detrimental effects on society, public health, and the economy. It emphasized the need for stringent sentencing to deter criminals and protect the societal fabric. The court dismissed the appeal, stating that leniency towards offenders like the appellant would be a disservice, especially in the face of rising drug abuse among youngsters. Each case must be evaluated based on its unique circumstances, with no right to negative equality in sentencing decisions. The judgment underscored the importance of reflecting public abhorrence of crimes through appropriate punishment to uphold justice for both victims and society at large.