Court Has No Power To Reduce Sentence Below Statutory Minimum Under NDPS Act: Supreme Court Denies Relief To Young Mother Convicted With 23.5 kg Ganja

“Statutory Minimum Sentences Under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) Cannot Be Softened Even On Humanitarian Grounds”, In a detailed and emphatic judgment Supreme Court of India firmly upheld the conviction and ten-year sentence imposed under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, refusing to extend any leniency despite the appellant being a 24-year-old first-time offender and the sole caregiver of a minor child.

The Court, speaking through Justice Vipul M. Pancholi, made it explicitly clear that judicial discretion cannot be invoked to go below the minimum mandatory sentence prescribed under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) for commercial quantity offences under the NDPS Act.

“It is not open to the Court to interfere with or reduce the sentence once the offence involves commercial quantity—statutory minimums are not subject to judicial sympathy,” the Bench observed, adding that “humanitarian considerations, though relevant for executive remission, cannot override statutory punishment mandated by the legislature.”

The appeal was accordingly dismissed, and the ten-year rigorous imprisonment with a fine of ₹1,00,000 imposed on each count was affirmed.

“Absence of Independent Witnesses Does Not Invalidate Recovery If Official Testimony Is Credible”: SC Rejects Core Defence Under NDPS Act

Challenging the conviction from the Madras High Court, the appellant had raised multiple grounds. Foremost among them was the contention that no independent witnesses were secured during the seizure, despite the area being a residential locality.

The Supreme Court, however, brushed aside this line of argument, emphasizing that "the absence of independent witnesses is not fatal when official witnesses depose consistently and without contradiction."

Referring to the testimonies of PW-1, PW-2, and PW-3—the raiding officers—the Court observed, “There was no cross-examination to suggest that independent persons were present or deliberately excluded. The officers testified that no one was willing to come forward at the scene. Their evidence is internally consistent and credible.”

Justice Pancholi underlined the settled legal position: “This Court has consistently held that non-examination of independent witnesses cannot be a ground to doubt the prosecution version if the testimony of official witnesses is found reliable.”

“Non-compliance With Ideal Sampling Procedure Under Section 52-A Is Not Fatal Unless Integrity Of Samples Is Compromised”: Court Clarifies Scope of Procedural Safeguards

A key plank of the appellant’s argument was that the sampling of contraband was done at the spot instead of before a Magistrate, allegedly violating Section 52-A of the NDPS Act, and thus rendering the prosecution case void.

But the Supreme Court found no merit in this contention, categorically holding:

“The procedural safeguards under Section 52-A are meant to preserve the integrity of the seized substance—not to create technical escape routes. Unless there is material to show that the sample’s identity or integrity was compromised, mere deviation from the ideal procedure is not sufficient to vitiate the trial.”

Relying on its own recent decision in Bharat Aambale v. State of Chhattisgarh, the Court reiterated that “non-compliance or delayed compliance with Section 52-A is not fatal unless it leads to actual prejudice or doubts regarding the identity of the samples.”

The Bench noted that the sample packets—marked S-1 and S-2—were drawn in the presence of witnesses, sealed immediately, produced before a Magistrate, and later sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory with intact seals. “The chain of custody remained intact, and there is no evidence of tampering or substitution,” the Court recorded.

“Moisture Loss Explains Minor Weight Reduction In Seized Ganja Sample—Not Grounds To Doubt Identity”: Apex Court Rejects Sample Weight Argument

Another submission by the appellant was that the sample originally stated to weigh “about 50 grams” was later found to be 40.6 grams when received by the forensic lab, raising suspicion about the authenticity of the sample.

Rejecting this argument, the Court stated, “The weight discrepancy is marginal and scientifically explained by natural drying. The 40-day interval between seizure and analysis justifies the loss due to moisture evaporation.”

It cited the forensic expert’s testimony noting that the sample contained “dry broken fragments”, consistent with ganja that had lost moisture over time.

The Court found that the High Court had rightly reasoned: “A description of ‘about 50 grams’ allows for a small variation. The discrepancy in weight, being neither drastic nor unexplained, does not affect the credibility of the seizure or the sample.”

“Judicial Discretion Ends Where Legislative Mandate Begins”: Supreme Court Declines to Reduce Sentence Below Ten Years

While acknowledging the appellant’s difficult personal circumstances—her youth, lack of prior offences, and her role as mother to a minor child—the Court ultimately held itself bound by the clear statutory mandate.

“We are not unmindful of the appellant’s circumstances,” the Bench noted, “but the NDPS Act leaves no scope for reducing the sentence below the minimum prescribed. The Court cannot invoke sympathy in the face of legislative command.”

The appellant, who had already served over 5 years and 9 months, pleaded that her sentence be reduced to the time undergone. But the Court stated in no uncertain terms:

“Once guilt is established for possession of commercial quantity, the sentencing court has no discretion. Such relief can only be considered by the appropriate authority empowered to grant executive remission—not by the judiciary.”

Procedural Rigour Alone Cannot Shield Accused In Commercial Quantity Offences Where Evidence Is Coherent and Custody Chain Intact

In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld both the conviction and the full statutory sentence, reinforcing its consistent position on NDPS cases involving commercial quantities:

“The prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was in conscious possession of 23.5 kg of ganja. Minor procedural irregularities do not shake the foundation of the case. The evidentiary record is coherent, the official witnesses are reliable, and the chain of custody is intact.”

The Court dismissed the appeal and reiterated that “liberty to seek remission lies with the executive, not the judiciary, once statutory minimums are attracted.”

Date of Decision: December 11, 2025