GURDEV SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [2021] 4 S.C.R. 439 · Decided: 06-04-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
439
   [2021] 4 S.C.R. 439
GURDEV SINGH
v.
STATE OF PUNJAB
(Criminal Appeal No. 375 of 2021)
APRIL 06, 2021
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
Sentence/Sentencing: Conviction of appellant-accused under
s.21 of NDPS Act – He was found to be in possession of 1 kg heroin
which is four times more than the minimum of commercial quantity –
As per NDPS Act, 250 gm and above of Narcotic substance/drug is
a commercial quantity – The minimum sentence provided under s.21
of the NDPS Act is 10 years R.I. – So far as the commercial quantity
is concerned, it may be upto 20 years R.I. – Appellant was sentenced
to 15 years R.I. with fine of Rs.2 lakhs – Plea of appellant that
while imposing punishment of 15 years R.I. which is higher than
the minimum term of imprisonment of 10 years R.I. neither the Special
Court nor High Court assigned any reasons taking into account
the factors mentioned in s.32B of the NDPS Act – Held: Appellant-
accused was found to be in possession of 1 kg heroin and he sold it
to the informant – Therefore, he cannot be said to be a mere carrier
– In given case, even a carrier who is having the knowledge that he
is carrying with him narcotic substance/drugs and is found to be
with huge commercial quantity of narcotic substance/drugs can be
awarded the sentence higher than the minimum sentence provided
under the Act – Therefore, the sentence imposed by the Special Court
of 15 years R.I. with fine of Rs.2 lakhs, confirmed by the High
Court is not required to be interfered with – It cannot be said that
while imposing such punishment the Court took into consideration
any irrelevant factors – Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
Act, 1985 – s.32B.
Sentence/Sentencing: Mitigating circumstances – Offence of
drug trafficking – Merely because the accused is a poor man and/
or a carrier and/or is a sole bread earner cannot be such mitigating
circumstances in favour of the accused while awarding the sentence/
punishment in case of NDPS Act – While awarding the sentence/
439
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
440
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 4 S.C.R.
punishment in case of NDPS Act, the interest of the society as a
whole is also required to be taken in consideration – Narcotic Drugs
and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985: s.32B
– Relevant factors for imposing punishment higher than the minimum
terms of imprisonment – Held: While imposing the punishment higher
than the minimum term of imprisonment or amount of fine, the Court
may take into account such factors as it may deem fit and also the
factors enumerated/mentioned in s.32B of the Act – The quantity of
substance would fall into “such factors as it may deem fit” and
while exercising its discretion of imposing the sentence/imprisonment
higher than the minimum, if the Court has taken into consideration
such factor of larger/higher quantity of substance, it cannot be
said that the Court has committed an error – The Court has a wide
discretion to impose the sentence/imprisonment ranging between
10 years to 20 years and while imposing such sentence/imprisonment
in addition, the Court may also take into consideration other factors
as enumerated in s.32B (a) to (f) – In the instant case, while
considering the request made on behalf of the accused to award
lesser punishment and to take lenient view while sentencing him,
the Special Court in fact took into consideration the relevant facts/
factors while not imposing the maximum punishment of 20 years
R.I. and awarding the sentence of 15 years R.I. – Therefore, as
such, it cannot be said that the Special Court did not at all apply its
mind while awarding the sentence.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1. Section 32B of the NDPS Act provides for factors
to be taken into account for imposing higher than the minimum
punishment. Section 32B of the Act itself further provides that
the Court may, in addition to such factors as it may deem fit, take
into account the factors for imposing a punishment higher than
the minimum term of imprisonment or amount of fine as mentioned
in Section 32B of the Act. Therefore, while imposing the
punishment higher than the minimum term of imprisonment or
amount of fine, the Court may take into account such factors as it
may deem fit and also the factors enumerated/mentioned in
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
441
Section 32B of the Act. Therefore, it cannot be said that while
imposing a punishment higher than the minimum term of
imprisonment or
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.