Section 32B NDPS Act Allows Broader Discretion To Court In Sentencing; Doesn't Restrict It To Only Those Factors Listed Under It: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court was considering a Special Leave Petition where the Petitioner was put to trial in a case registered under Section 21(c) of the NDPS Act.

The Division Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan observed, “This Court in Rafiq Qureshi (supra) clarified that the language of 12 Section 32-B inherently preserves the court’s discretion to consider other relevant factors beyond those listed. Specifically, the quantity of the narcotic substance was deemed a pertinent factor warranting a sentence above the statutory minimum, despite the absence of any enumerated aggravating factors in Section 32-B. Referring to Sakshi vs. Union of India, reported in (2004) 5 SCC 518, this Court emphasized the principle that legislative intent is derived from the explicit language of the statute, avoiding the insertion of words not present. Since Section 32-B uses “may deem fit” in addition to the enumerated factors, it does not restrict the courts to only those factors but allows broader discretion in sentencing.”

Advocate Sampa Sengupta Ray represented the Petitioner.

Factual Background

The case as set up by the prosecution was that in 2018, the Investigating Officer received information that two individuals, including the petitioner, standing on a road, had a psychotropic substance in a bag. A search was undertaken of the two individuals, and the same resulted in seizure of many vials of various cough syrups, and one of them also contained a substance named Codeine Phosphate. In all, 236 vials were recovered from the possession of the petitioner herein along with the co-accused.

At the end of the trial, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo 12 years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs 1,00,000. The petitioner filed an appeal before the High Court. While dismissing the appeal, the High Court reduced the sentence of 12 years as imposed by the trial court to 10 years i.e. the minimum as provided under the NDPS Act.

Reasoning

The Bench found no good reason to disturb the impugned judgment of the High Court dismissing the appeal. “However, there is something which we have noticed and must not be ignored. The High Court seems to be labouring under a serious misconception of law so far as the interpretation of Section 32-B of the NDPS Act is concerned”, it said.

The Bench noted that section 32-B provides that the court, in addition to various relevant factors, may also take into account the factors as prescribed in Clauses (a) to (f). “Having regard to the quantity of the contraband, the nature of the narcotic or the psychotropic substance, as the case may be, the antecedents, if any, etc., may deem fit to impose punishment which can be more than the minimum. In such circumstances, there was no good reason for the High Court to reduce the sentence from 12 years to 10 years relying on Rafiq Qureshi (supra). The dictum as laid down in Rafiq Qureshi (supra) has not been understood in its true perspective”, it said.

It was observed in Rafiq Qureshi (supra) that the language of Section 32-B inherently preserves the court’s discretion to consider other relevant factors beyond those listed. Specifically, the quantity of the narcotic substance was deemed a pertinent factor warranting a sentence above the statutory minimum, despite the absence of any enumerated aggravating factors in Section 32-B. Further reference was made to the judgment in Gurdev Singh vs. State of Punjab (2021) wherein it was observed that the factors mentioned in Section 32-B of the NDPS Act are in addition to other relevant facts, and it cannot be said that the minimum sentence under the NDPS Act is to be considered as a maximum sentence.

“It appears that the understanding of the High Court so far as Section 32-B of the NDPS is concerned is that the minimum sentence should be considered as maximum sentence. That is not the correct understanding of Section 32-B of the NDPS Act”, the Bench said.

Thus, finding no ground to interfere with that part of the order of the High Court reducing the sentence, the Bench dismissed the Petition.

Cause Title: Narayan Das v. State of Chhattisgarh (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 872)

Appearanc

Petitioner: Advocates Sampa Sengupta Ray, Tushar Mudgil, AOR Ashish Pandey, Advocates Piyush Merani, Ashutosh Bhardwaj, Vikram Kumar, Ali Mohammed Khan

Click here to read/download Order