SC- While imposing higher than the minimum punishment, the factors provided under S. 32b of the NDPS act, need to be taken into account

 

Read Judgment ;

The division judge bench of Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice C.T. Ravikumar of the apex court in the case of Budhiyarin Bai V. State of Chattisgarh held that Section 32B of the NDPS Act has provisions for the considerations that must be taken into account while imposing punishments greater than the minimum.

BRIEF FACTS

The factual matrix of the case is that the appellant, a poor, uneducated woman who was a senior citizen at the time of the alleged incident, was accused under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act of having shared possession of a commercial amount of unlawful "Ganja" (cannabis) with their combined knowledge, according to the allegations.

According to Section 27A of the NDPS Act, further co-defendants were accused of delivering illicit cannabis to the home that the accused-appellant owned in Village Chikhali, and facilitating the trafficking of cannabis by the appellant and her two children.

The trial court convicted the appellant for the offenses under section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic substance act, 1985, and sentenced to 15 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. One Lakh, in default to pay fine, a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years to be undergone separately. 

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the state has made an attempt to persuade this Court that, given the nature of the offense committed by the appellant, there should be no leniency in such cases, especially since the conviction was upheld by the High Court in accordance with Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act and the offense was proven against her beyond a reasonable doubt.

COURT’S OBSERVATION

The top court is of the view that the offenses under the NDPS Act are very serious in nature and against society at large and no discretion is to be exercised in favor of such accused who are indulged in such offenses under the Act. But while upholding the same, this Court cannot be oblivious of the other facts and circumstances as projected in the present case that the old illiterate lady from a rural background, who was a senior citizen at the time of the alleged incident, was residing in that house along with her husband and two grown up children who may be into illegal trade but that the prosecution failed to examine and taking note of the procedural compliance as contemplated under Sections 42, 50 and 55 of the NDPS Act, held the appellant guilty for the reason that she was residing in that house but at the same time, this fact was completely ignored that the other co­accused were also residing in the same house and what was their trade, and who were those persons who were involved into the illegal trade providing supplies of psychotropic substances, the prosecution has never cared to examine. 

The supreme court after considering the facts and circumstances of the case reduced the sentence of the appellant to 12 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 1 lakh and in default, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment of six months which shall meet the ends of justice.

CASE NAME – Budhiyarin Bai V. State of Chattisgarh

CITATION-    CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S).1218  OF 2022  

DATED-10.08.22

CORUM- Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice C.T. Ravikumar

Read Judgment ; 

 

 

Social media is bold.

Social media is young.

Social media raises questions.

 Social media is not satisfied with an answer.

Social media looks at the big picture.

 Social media is interested in every detail.

social media is curious.

 Social media is free.

Social media is irreplaceable.

But never irrelevant.

Social media is you.

(With input from news agency language)

 If you like this story, share it with a friend!  

We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure