Narcotic offences have deadly impact on society; accused's financial condition alone not mitigating factor while deciding sentence: Supreme Court

Merely because the accused is a poor man or the sole bread winner of the family cannot be a mitigating circumstance in his/ her favour while awarding the punishment under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, the Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday (Gurdev Singh v. State of Punjab)..This, the Court said, is because offences under the NDPS Act have a deadly impact on the society and therefore, the interest of the society as a whole is also required to be taken into consideration while awarding sentence under the Act.“Those persons who are dealing in narcotic drugs are instruments in causing death or in inflicting death blow to number of innocent young victims who are vulnerable; it cause deleterious effects and deadly impact on the society; they are hazard to the society,” the Court observed..The judgment was delivered by a Bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah in an appeal filed against a decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court which had confirmed the conviction and sentence of 15 years imprisonment handed down by the trial court.Clandestine smuggling of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances (NDPS) into the country and illegal trafficking in such drugs has assumed alarming proportion in recent years, the Supreme CourtSuch acts have a deadly impact on the society and therefore, the interest of the society as a whole is also required to be taken into consideration in cases under the NDPS Act..The trial court had found the appellant guilty of offence under Section 21 of the NDPS Act and sentenced to 15 years rigorous imprisonment besides fine of Rs. 2 lakh.The Supreme Court by an earlier order of December 2020 had already refused to interfere with the conviction.It therefore considered the case only on the sentencing aspect..The appellant’s case was that minimum sentence which is provided in Section 21 of the NDPS Act is 10 years.It was submitted that as per Section 32B of the Act, where a minimum term of imprisonment or amount of fine is prescribed for any offence committed under the Act, the Court may in addition to such factors, as it may deem fit, take into account the factors which are mentioned in Section 32B for imposing a punishment higher than the term of imprisonment or amount of fine..The appellant contended that by imposing the punishment higher than the minimum term of imprisonment i.e. in the present case 15 years rigorous imprisonment, the Court had to take into consideration the factors mentioned in Section 32B of the Act and had to assign the reasons while imposing the punishment higher than the minimum term of imprisonment..However, in the present case neither the special court nor the High Court assigned any reasons taking into account the factors mentioned in Section 32B of the Act, it was argued.It was also highlighted that the appellant is a first-time convict, a poor person and was only a carrier..The counsel for the State submitted that decision to impose a punishment higher than the minimum is not confined or limited to the factors as enumerated in clauses (a) to (f) of Section 32B and the Court’s discretion to consider such factors as it may deem fit is not taken away or tinkered.The quantity of drug is a factor which the court can take into account while handing down the sentence.In the present case, it was submitted, the accused was found to be in possession of huge quantity of heroin i.e. 1 kg and was found to be selling narcotic substance/drugs. Hence, the sentence/imprisonment imposed by trial court and confirmed by the High Court does not warrant interference, it was argued..The Court agreed with the argument of the State and held that while imposing the punishment higher than the minimum term of imprisonment or amount of fine, the Court may take into account such factors as it may deem fit other than enumerated in Section 32B.“The quantity of substance would fall into “such factors as it may deem fit” and while exercising its discretion of imposing the sentence/imprisonment higher than the minimum, if the Court has taken into consideration such factor of larger/higher quantity of substance, it cannot be said that the Court has committed an error,” the Bench ruled..Besides, the Court also considered the impact NDPS offences could have on the society.“Organized activities of the underworld and the clandestine smuggling of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances into this country and illegal trafficking in such drugs and substances shall lay to drug addiction among a sizeable section of the public, particularly the adolescents and students of both sexes and the menace has assumed serious and alarming proportions in the recent years,” the Court observed..Thus, while striking balance between the mitigating and aggravating circumstances, public interest, impact on the society as a whole will always be tilt in favour of the suitable higher punishment, the Court ruled.“Therefore, merely because the accused is a poor man and/or a carrier and/or is a sole bread earner cannot be such mitigating circumstances in favour of the accused while awarding the sentence/punishment in the case of NDPS Act,” the judgment said.On the above grounds, the appeal was dismissed..[Read Order]