Minimum Sentence Is Not the Maximum Under Section 32-B NDPS: Supreme Court Dismisses Codeine Syrup Convict's Plea

On 20.09.2018 Ambikapur police, acting on information, searched the petitioner and a co-accused standing by the main road at Parsa and seized 236 vials of 100 ml cough syrup (R.C. Kuff, Codectus and Elderqurex) labelled as containing codeine phosphate (paras 3-4). The Special Judge (NDPS Act), Surguja convicted him under Section 21(c) and sentenced him to 12 years' rigorous imprisonment and a ₹1 lakh fine (paras 2, 5). The High Court dismissed his appeal but, relying on Rafiq Qureshi, cut the sentence to the 10-year minimum because the trial court had given no special reason for exceeding it (paras 5, 10). The petition, a legal aid matter, came with delay, which was condoned (paras 1, 7).

The Court saw no good reason to disturb the dismissal of the appeal, although the petitioner attacked the seizure as seriously flawed (paras 8-9). It found, however, that the High Court had misread Section 32-B as requiring reasons drawn from clauses (a) to (f) before any sentence above the minimum (paras 9-13). Section 32-B says the court may, in addition to such factors as it deems fit, consider those clauses; a trial court may therefore impose more than the minimum having regard to the quantity of contraband, the nature of the drug or substance and any antecedents, without finding a listed factor (paras 14-15). Rafiq Qureshi, read with Sakshi, holds that this wording preserves the court's discretion and that quantity is a relevant factor; a higher court examines only whether the factor relied on is relevant (paras 16-17). Gurdev Singh likewise held that the listed factors are in addition to other relevant factors, so the minimum sentence cannot be treated as the maximum (para 18). The High Court had done exactly that, which was wrong, but the Court chose not to interfere with the reduced sentence (paras 19-20).