Appellants were convicted for commission of an offence purported to be
under Section 8 read with Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act, for short), having been found in possession of 12
gms. of the contraband from each of them.
Our attention has been drawn to Section 21(a) and (b) of the NDPS Act
which read as under:
“21. Whoever, in contravention of any provision this Act
or any rule or order made or condition of licence granted
thereunder, manufactures, possesses, sells, purchases, transports,
imports inter-State, exports inter-State or uses any manufactured
drug or any preparation containing any manufactured drug shall be
punishable,-
(a) where the contravention involves small quantity, with
rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months,
or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both;
(b) where the contravention involves quantity, lesser than
commercial quantity but greater than small quantity, with rigorous
imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years and with
fine which may extend to one lakh rupees.”
Indisputably, the appellants are in custody since 28.2.2000 i.e. for a period of
more than eight years. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, we
are of the opinion that they did not deserve maximum punishment prescribed under
Section 21(b) of the NDPS Act, applying the doctrine of proportionality in imposing
the sentence vis-a-vis the object and purport thereof as has been provided for in the
NDPS Act.
We are, therefore, of the opinion that interest of justice would be subserved
if the sentence imposed upon the appellants is reduced to the period already
undergone by them, including for the default clause.
The appellants are in jail. They are directed to be set at liberty forthwith.
The appeals are allowed accordingly.
(S.B. SINHA)