The Chhattisgarh High Court clarified that, for offences involving intermediate quantity of Ganja under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, where no minimum sentence is mandated, courts have discretion to reduce the sentence to the period already undergone, considering mitigating factors. This judgment affirms Supreme Court precedent, reinforcing judicial discretion in sentence reduction for intermediate quantity narcotics cases, and serves as binding authority within Chhattisgarh.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRA/1305/2025 of SABAN BASTIRAI Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH |
| CNR | CGHC010283682025 |
| Date of Registration | 07-07-2025 |
| Decision Date | 15-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | PARTLY ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAVINDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL |
| Court | High Court Of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur |
| Bench | Single Judge Bench (Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority for subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law – Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 |
| Questions of Law | Whether, in absence of a prescribed minimum sentence for intermediate quantity under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) NDPS Act, courts can reduce the sentence to period already undergone, considering mitigating factors. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The High Court affirmed that conviction under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) NDPS Act (intermediate quantity) does not carry a mandatory minimum sentence. Considering mitigating factors (age, family situation) and relying on Supreme Court precedent, the court held that reduction of sentence to period already undergone is permissible. The conviction was affirmed, but the sentence was modified accordingly. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Mohammad Giasuddin Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1977 (3) SCC 287 |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Lack of minimum statutory sentence for intermediate quantity; discretion for courts to apply mitigating factors per Supreme Court guidance. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Appellant was found with 8 KG Ganja, convicted after proper compliance with NDPS procedures, and challenged only his sentence—not his conviction—arguing mitigating circumstances. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts; may be cited before the Supreme Court |
| Follows | Mohammad Giasuddin Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1977 (3) SCC 287 |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Clarifies that for offences under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) NDPS Act (intermediate quantity), courts have discretion to reduce sentence below the statutory maximum, as there is no minimum prescribed.
- Mitigating factors (such as young age and family responsibilities) may be considered in sentencing for intermediate quantity offences under NDPS Act.
- Reinforces that proper compliance with NDPS Act procedural safeguards is necessary for upholding conviction, but sentence reduction is a separate aspect for judicial consideration.
- Lawyers can cite this precedent for seeking reduction of sentence to period already undergone in appropriate cases, especially where no minimum sentence is mandated.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court reviewed all evidence to confirm compliance with mandatory NDPS Act procedures regarding search, seizure, and sampling.
- The appellant did not contest his conviction, only seeking sentence reduction on the ground of mitigating circumstances.
- The High Court noted that Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act (intermediate quantity) does not mandate a statutory minimum sentence.
- It relied on the Supreme Court’s ratio in Mohammad Giasuddin Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1977 (3) SCC 287 regarding judicial discretion in sentencing and the importance of considering mitigating factors.
- After affirming the conviction, the court exercised its discretion to reduce the sentence to the period already undergone, taking into account the appellant’s age, family responsibilities, and incarceration period (about ten months).
- The fine and default stipulation remained intact.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Did not challenge the conviction, only the sentence.
- Argued for reduction of sentence to period already undergone, citing:
- The quantity seized (intermediate, 8 KG).
- No minimum sentence prescribed for the offence.
- Sufficient time already spent in jail (about ten months).
- Young age and family responsibilities.
Respondent (State)
- Opposed sentence reduction.
- Asserted full compliance with mandatory NDPS procedural provisions.
- Emphasised the impact of offence and the adequacy of trial court’s sentence.
Factual Background
On 22.01.2021, acting on secret information, Raipur GRP Police apprehended the appellant at Raipur Railway Station and seized 8 KG of Ganja from his possession. All procedures under the NDPS Act were adhered to, including notice under Section 50, presence of witnesses, and proper documentation. The appellant was convicted under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) NDPS Act by the Special Judge and sentenced to 3 years RI and Rs 25,000 fine. He appealed, not contesting conviction but praying for a reduced sentence based on mitigating circumstances.
Statutory Analysis
- The judgment centres on Section 20(b)(ii)(B) NDPS Act, which penalizes possession of intermediate quantity of cannabis (Ganja).
- The court noted that this clause does not prescribe any minimum sentence, thus granting sentencing discretion to courts.
- The court referenced and applied the principle in Mohammad Giasuddin Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1977 (3) SCC 287, emphasizing that courts can consider individual circumstances for sentencing where statute allows.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing law regarding sentencing discretion for intermediate quantity NDPS offences has been affirmed and clarified.