Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – s.32-B – Factors to be taken into account for imposing higher than the minimum punishment – High Court’s understanding that u/s.32-B minimum punishment is considered as maximum punishment; and that at the time of imposing sentence the trial court to keep in mind the factors as provided in clauses (a) to (f) of s.32-B – Correctness:
Held: Understanding of the High Court not correct – s.32-B provides that the court in addition to various relevant factors may also take into account the factors as prescribed in Clauses (a) to (f) – Thus, in a given case, the trial court may not find it necessary to consider the factors as prescribed in s.32-B – Having regard to the quantity of the contraband, the nature of the narcotic or the psychotropic substance, as the case may be, the antecedents, if any, etc., may deem fit to impose punishment which can be more than the minimum – Thus, no good reason for the High Court to reduce the sentence from 12 years to 10 years relying on Rafiq Qureshi’s case – Dictum laid down in Rafiq Qureshi’s case was not understood in its true perspective – This Court in Rafiq Qureshi’s case clarified that the language of s.32-B inherently preserves the court’s discretion to consider other relevant factors beyond those listed – Thus, factors mentioned in s.32-B are in addition to other relevant facts, and it cannot be said that the minimum sentence under the NDPS Act is to be considered as a maximum sentence – However, order of the High Court reducing the sentence not interfered with. [Paras 14, 17]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.