Judgment Intelligence
Partly AllowedRafiq Qureshi v. Narcotic Control Bureau, Eastern Zonal Unit
2019 INSC 639
Criminal Appeal No. 567 of 2019 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 10246 of 2018)
- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Date of Decision
- 7 May 2019
- Bench
- Justices Ashok Bhushan and K.M. Joseph
- Relevant Acts & Sections
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Sections 21, 32B
Final Outcome
Appeal partly allowed. The conviction under Section 21(c) is maintained, but the sentence is reduced from 16 to 12 years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs 2 lakh, and six months' simple imprisonment in default (para 23).
Source Supreme Court of India, www.sci.gov.in — judgment dated 07.05.2019
Key holdings
- The factors in clauses (a) to (f) of Section 32B are not exhaustive; the court may consider other factors it deems fit (paras 15, 17).
- A quantity far above the commercial quantity is a relevant factor for a sentence above the minimum (para 15).
- Not adverting to the Section 32B factors does not vitiate a higher sentence based on quantity (para 22).
- A higher sentence based on an irrelevant factor, with none of the listed factors present, can be interfered with (para 22).
- That the accused was only a carrier weighed in reducing the sentence (para 23).
Case explainer by NyayVidhan: an account of this judgment and the law it laid down, not the court's text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.
Brief Facts
The appellant was convicted under Section 21(c) of the NDPS Act and sentenced by the trial court to 18 years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 2 lakh; on 17.04.2018 the Calcutta High Court maintained the conviction but reduced the sentence to 16 years, and the Supreme Court issued notice limited to the sentence (opening paragraph). Of a gross 8.175 kg alleged to be heroin, the analysis showed 609.6 g, well above the commercial quantity (para 23). The appellant argued that, without any of the aggravating factors in clauses (a) to (f) of Section 32B, only the ten-year minimum could be imposed (paras 3-4).
Court's Findings
Section 32B, inserted by Act 9 of 2001 to rationalise the sentence structure, lets the court, in addition to such factors as it may deem fit, take the listed factors into account (paras 9, 11-12, 14). Its words show that the court's discretion is not confined to clauses (a) to (f), which say nothing about quantity (paras 14-15, 17). A quantity many times the commercial quantity may justify a sentence above the minimum (para 15). Following Sakshi, legislative intent is gathered from the language used, and words cannot be added to a statute (para 16). The Allahabad High Court decisions in Krishna Murari Pal and Ram Asre correctly stated the scope of Section 32B (paras 19-21). A higher sentence based on quantity cannot be faulted merely because the court did not advert to the listed factors; but where it rests on some other factor, a higher court can examine its relevance and interfere if it is irrelevant and no listed factor is present (para 22). The higher sentence was upheld, but as the appellant was only a carrier, 12 years would serve the ends of justice (para 23).
Legal Principle
Under Section 32B of the NDPS Act, a court may impose a sentence above the statutory minimum on other factors it considers fit, such as the quantity of drugs, besides the listed ones. A higher sentence resting on an irrelevant factor, with no listed factor present, can be corrected by a higher court (paras 15, 22).
Precedents Relied Upon
- Sakshi v. Union of India and others (2004)5 SCC 518
The intention of the legislature is primarily gathered from the language used; a construction that requires adding or substituting words is to be avoided, and a penal statute is strictly construed.
