The Chhattisgarh High Court has affirmed a conviction under the NDPS Act but significantly reduced the sentence to the period already undergone, establishing that proportionality and personal circumstances must inform sentencing in drug offences - even for quantities exceeding statutory thresholds. This ruling reinforces that mechanical imposition of minimum sentences must yield to individualized justice.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, Bhaktraj Ghosh alias Raja S/o Jodhu Gopal Ghosh, aged approximately 28 years at the time of arrest and about 30 years at the time of appeal, was charged with possession of 3.500 kg of ganja under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The offence arose from a police raid conducted on 02.09.2024 at his residence in Purani Basti, Raipur, following information from an informant.
Key Facts
- The seized contraband was stored in a white plastic carry bag.
- The substance was sent to the State Forensic Science Laboratory and confirmed as ganja via Test Report (Ex.P-46).
- A total of 8 prosecution witnesses were examined and 53 documents were exhibited.
- The appellant’s statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied involvement and claimed false implication.
- Arrest Memo (Ex.P-30) recorded the appellant’s educational qualification as 8th standard and occupation as a labourer.
- The appellant had no prior criminal record under the NDPS Act.
- The appellant had seven prior cases under IPC, Arms Act, and Gambling Act, but none involving drug trafficking or commercial quantities.
Procedural History
- 02.09.2024: Raid conducted and contraband seized.
- 03.09.2024: FIR registered at Police Station Purani Basti, Raipur.
- 15.11.2024: Charge sheet filed in Special Criminal Case No. 268/2024.
- 01.12.2025: Trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act and sentenced him to 1 year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 25,000, with 6 months additional RI in default of fine.
- 07.04.2026: Appeal filed under Section 415 of BNSS, 2023 before the Chhattisgarh High Court.
Relief Sought
The appellant sought reduction of his sentence to the period already undergone - 11 months and 24 days - on grounds of time spent in custody, family responsibilities, and absence of prior drug-related convictions.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act must be strictly applied irrespective of the accused’s personal circumstances, or whether courts may exercise discretion to reduce it to time already served where the accused has no history of drug offences, is a low-level labourer, and has served nearly the full term.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
Counsel submitted that while the conviction was not challenged on merits, the sentence was disproportionate. He emphasized that the appellant, aged 30, had been in custody for 11 months and 24 days since the incident in September 2024, had no prior NDPS convictions, was a daily wage labourer, and bore family responsibilities. He relied on Mohammad Giasuddin v. State of Andhra Pradesh to argue that sentencing must reflect individual circumstances and that justice demands release after near-complete service.
For the Respondent/State
The State supported the trial court’s sentence, arguing that possession of 3.5 kg of ganja falls squarely within the purview of Section 20(b)(ii)(B), which mandates a minimum sentence of one year. It contended that the appellant’s seven prior cases under other statutes demonstrated a pattern of lawlessness, and that reducing the sentence would undermine deterrence.
The Court's Analysis
The Court first affirmed the conviction, finding no infirmity in the trial court’s appreciation of evidence. The seizure memo (Ex.P-27), forensic report (Ex.P-46), and testimony of PW-3 collectively established the appellant’s possession of the contraband beyond reasonable doubt.
However, in relation to sentencing, the Court turned to the principle of proportionality and the directive in Mohammad Giasuddin v. State of Andhra Pradesh, which holds that while statutory minimums are mandatory, courts retain discretion to consider mitigating factors in exceptional cases. The Court noted that the appellant’s prior cases were under IPC, Arms, and Gambling Acts - none involving narcotics trafficking or commercial scale. His occupation as a labourer, limited education, and lack of prior NDPS record distinguished him from habitual offenders.
"This Court opines that justice would be served if the appellant's sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him."
The Court rejected the State’s argument that prior non-NDPS offences warranted strict sentencing, observing that the statutory framework under the NDPS Act targets traffickers and commercial dealers, not isolated possessors with no history of drug-related criminality. The Court further noted that the appellant had already served nearly the entire term, and further incarceration served no rehabilitative or deterrent purpose.
The Verdict
The appeal was partly allowed. The conviction under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act was upheld. The sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment was reduced to the period already undergone - 11 months and 24 days. The fine of Rs. 25,000 and the default sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment in case of non-payment were maintained. The appellant was directed to be released forthwith, unless detained in connection with any other case or for default of fine. A certified copy of the judgment was to be transmitted to the trial court and the jail superintendent.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Sentencing Under NDPS Act Must Be Individualized
- Practitioners must now argue that statutory minimums under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) are not absolute where the accused is a first-time, non-commercial possessor with no prior NDPS history.
- Personal circumstances - occupation, education, family responsibilities, and time served - must be formally pleaded and supported by evidence.
Prior Non-Drug Convictions Do Not Automatically Justify Strict Sentencing
- The Court distinguished between general criminality and drug-specific offending. Seven prior cases under IPC or Arms Act do not equate to a pattern of drug trafficking.
- Courts must evaluate whether prior offences reflect a propensity for narcotics-related crime.
Time Served Can Replace Mandatory Minimums in Exceptional Circumstances
- Where an accused has served 90% or more of the mandatory sentence, and no aggravating factors exist, reduction to time served is a viable legal argument.
- This precedent empowers defence counsel to seek early release even in cases involving large quantities, provided the accused is not a dealer or repeat offender.
