17 July 2025 Drugs >> Criminal Law  

The Supreme Court recently addressed a crucial point of law regarding sentencing under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), clarifying the interpretation of Section 32B. This provision deals with factors a court can consider when imposing a punishment higher than the minimum prescribed sentence. The Court’s decision came in a petition where the petitioner, convicted for possessing a commercial quantity of cough syrup containing Codeine Phosphate, had their sentence reduced by the High Court from 12 years to 10 years (the statutory minimum).

The High Court, in its judgment, seemed to operate under the misconception that a trial court must explicitly cite the factors listed in clauses (a) to (f) of Section 32B to impose a sentence higher than the minimum. The High Court incorrectly concluded that because the trial court had not provided “special reasons” based on these specific factors, the higher sentence was unwarranted.

The Supreme Court, however, found this interpretation to be flawed. After examining the language of Section 32B and previous rulings, the Court reiterated that the provision gives courts broader discretion.

The Correct Interpretation of Section 32B:

The Court highlighted that Section 32B states that a court "may, in addition to such factors as it may deem fit, take into account the following factors..." This wording is key. It means the factors listed in clauses (a) through (f) — such as the use of violence, a public official abusing their position, or involving minors — are not the only considerations. They are merely a non-exhaustive list of aggravating circumstances.

The Court relied on its earlier judgments in Rafiq Qureshi vs. Narcotic Control Bureau and Gurdev Singh vs. State of Punjab to reinforce this point. These cases established that a court’s discretion to impose a higher sentence is not limited to the factors enumerated in Section 32B. Instead, a court can consider other relevant circumstances, such as the quantity of the substance.

For example, if an individual is caught with a quantity of drugs that is significantly higher than the commercial quantity threshold, a court can legitimately view this as a relevant factor justifying a sentence above the 10-year minimum, even if none of the specific conditions in clauses (a) to (f) are met.

Why the High Court's Logic Was Faulty:

The Supreme Court noted that the High Court's decision essentially treated the minimum sentence as the maximum, which is an incorrect reading of the law. The NDPS Act provides a sentencing range (for commercial quantities, typically 10 to 20 years). A court has the power to impose any sentence within this range based on a holistic assessment of the case. The High Court's reliance on the absence of factors from Section 32B to justify reducing the sentence was a misapplication of the law.

While the Supreme Court found the High Court's reasoning to be erroneous, it chose not to interfere with the reduced sentence of 10 years in this specific case. However, it made it clear that the High Court’s interpretation of Section 32B was a serious misconception of law that needed to be corrected. The ruling clarifies that courts have the flexibility to consider all relevant circumstances of a case when determining a just and proportionate sentence, and they are not bound solely by the factors listed in Section 32B.

  Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985