LexNARAYAN DAS versus STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 289 : 2025 INSC 872 Narayan Das v. State of Chhattisgarh (Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 10310 of 2025) 17 July 2025 [J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the interpretation of s.32-B of the NDPS Act by the High Court that u/s.32-B minimum punishment is considered as maximum punishment. Headnotes† 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] 290 [2025] 8 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports Case Law Cited Rafiq Qureshi v. Narcotic Control Bureau Eastern Zonal Unit [2019] 7 SCR 248 : (2019) 6 SCC 492 – explained. Sakshi v. Union of India [2004] Supp. 2 SCR 723 : (2004) 5 SCC 518; Gurdev Singh v. State of Punjab (2021) 6 SCC 558 – referred to. List of Acts Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. List of Keywords Psychotropic substance; Misconception of law; Interpretation of s.32-B, NDPS Act; Minimum sentence considered as maximum sentence; Rafiq Qureshi’s case; Reduction of sentence. Case Arising From EXTRAORDINARY CRIMINAL JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 10310 of 2025 From the Judgment and Order dated 16.01.2025 of the High Court of Chhatisgarh at Bilaspur in CRA No. 349 of 2021 Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Petitioner: Ms. Sampa Sengupta Ray, Tushar Mudgil, Ashish Pandey, Piyush Merani, Ashutosh Bhardwaj, Vikram Kumar, Ali Mohammed Khan. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Order 1. Delay condoned. 2. The petitioner was put to trial in the Court of Special Judge (NDPS Act), Surguja, Ambikapur, District-Surguja (C.G.) in Special Criminal (NDPS) Case No.04/2019 for the offence punishable under Section 21(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short “the NDPS Act”). 3. It is the case of the prosecution that on 20th September, 2018, the Investigating Officer attached with the Ambikapur, police station [2025] 8 S.C.R. 291 Narayan Das v. State of Chhattisgarh received information that two individuals namely Ambika Vishwakarma and Narayan Das (petitioner herein) were standing on the side of the main road of Parsa and were in possession of psychotropic substance in a bag. 4. A search was undertaken of the two individuals and the same resulted in seizure of R.C. Kuff cough syrup in all 143 vials each containing 100ml, Codectus cough Syrup 70 vials each containing 100ml and Elderqurex cough syrup 23 vials each containing 100ml with labels containing a substance Codeine Phosphate. In all 236 vials were recovered from the possession of the petitioner herein along with the co-accused. 5. At the end of the trial the petitioner herein stood convicted and was sentenced to undergo 12 years of rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,00,000/-. The petitioner went in appeal before the High Court. The High Court dismissed the appeal. However, while dismissing the appeal, the High Court reduced the sentence of 12 years as imposed by
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.