RAFIQ QURESHI versus NARCOTIC CONTROL BUREAU EASTERN ZONAL UNIT

Citation: [2019] 7 S.C.R. 248 · Decided: 07-05-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHUSHAN · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
248
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 7 S.C.R.
RAFIQ QURESHI
v.
NARCOTIC CONTROL BUREAU EASTERN ZONAL UNIT
(Criminal Appeal No. 567 of 2019)
MAY 07, 2019
[ASHOK BHUSHAN AND K. M. JOSEPH, JJ.]
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 –
ss.15(a), 16, 21(c), 31, 32B – Interpretation of s.32B – Appellant
convicted and sentenced u/s.21(c) to suffer rigorous imprisonment
for a term of 18 years – High Court while maintaining the conviction,
reduced the sentence to 16 years rigorous imprisonment – In appeal
by the appellant, Supreme Court issued notice limited to the quantum
of the sentence – Held: 1985 Act enumerates different offences and
provides for punishment – Various sections provide for different
punishments – There are few provisions in which minimum and
maximum punishment have been provided for, however, they do not
indicate any legislative policy regarding sentencing – In the present
case, conviction has been recorded u/s.21(c)– s.21(c) provides that
rigorous imprisonment shall not be “less than ten years but which
may extend to twenty years and shall also be liable to fine” – s.32B
is brought in the statute to rationalise the sentencing structure –
Clauses (a) to (f) in s.32B enumerate various factors for imposing
a punishment higher than the minimum term of imprisonment –
Statutory scheme indicates that the decision to impose a punishment
higher than the minimum is not confined or limited to the factors
enumerated in clauses (a) to (f) – Court’s discretion to consider
such factors as it may deem fit is not taken away or tinkered – High
Court held that since the actual quantity of Heroine which the
appellant was found in possession of was 609.6gm, as against the
alleged quantity of 8.175 Kg of Heroin, which is much higher than
the commercial quantity, thus punishment higher than the minimum
is justified – Judgment of the trial court and the High Court
awarding the punishment higher than the minimum, upheld –
However, in the facts and circumstances of the case including the
fact that it was found by the High Court that the appellant was only
a carrier, the ends of justice will be sub-served in reducing the
   [2019] 7 S.C.R. 248
248
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
249
sentence from 16 years to 12 years – Conviction of the appellant
maintained – Sentenced to undergo 12 years rigorous imprisonment,
with Rs. 2 lakh fine, in default of payment of which the appellant to
further undergo simple imprisonment for six months – Sentencing –
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Amendment) Act,
2001.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 enumerates different offences and provides
for punishment. In the present case, conviction was recorded
under Section 21(c). Section 32 was inserted by Act 9 of 2001 in
the 1985 Act w.e.f 02.10.2001. A perusal of different provisions
of Act, 1985 indicates that various sections provide for different
punishments. Section 21(c) provides that rigorous imprisonment
shall not be “less than ten years but which may extend to twenty
years and shall also be liable to fine”. In various other sections
the punishments are like Section 15(a) which may extend to one
year or with fine as in Section 16 which may extend to ten years
or with fine. Thus, there are few provisions in which minimum
punishment and maximum punishment have been provided for.
The different provisions, however, do not indicate any legislative
policy regarding sentencing especially when there is minimum
and maximum punishment is prescribed, how to peg the
punishment. By Act 9 of 2001, Section 31 was substituted which
provides that any person who has been convicted of the
commission of, or attempt to commit, or abetment of, or criminal
conspiracy to commit, any of the offences punishable under this
Act is subsequently convicted of the offence shall be punished
for the second and every subsequent offence with rigorous
imprisonment for a term which may extend to one and one-half
times of the maximum term of imprisonment.  [Paras 8-10]
[254-C; 255-A; G-H; 256-A-B]
1.2 The Statement of Objects and Reasons reveals that the
Amendment Act has inserted provisions for rationalisation of the
sentencing structure. Section 32B is a provision which is brought
in the statute to rationalise the sentencing structure. Section 32B
from clauses (a) to (f) enumerates various factors for imposing a
punishment higher than the minimum term of imprisonment. The
RAFIQ QURESHI v. NARC

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.