Supreme Court clarifies sentencing powers under the NDPS Act: Rafiq Qureshi vs. Narcotic Control Bureau (2019)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: May 7, 2019

Citation: (2019) INSC 469

Judges: Ashok Bhushan, J., K.M. Joseph, J.

Can a court impose a sentence higher than the minimum prescribed under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) if none of the specific aggravating factors listed in Section 32B are present? The Supreme Court of India addressed this crucial question in a case concerning drug trafficking. The Court clarified the scope of Section 32B, which outlines factors to be considered when imposing a sentence higher than the minimum for offenses under the NDPS Act. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice K.M. Joseph.

Case Background

The case originated from the conviction of Rafiq Qureshi by the Additional District & Sessions Judge under Section 21(c) of the NDPS Act for possessing a commercial quantity of heroin. The trial court sentenced him to 18 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2 lakh. Qureshi appealed to the High Court of Calcutta, which upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence to 16 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2 lakh.

Qureshi then appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging the quantum of the sentence. The Supreme Court issued a notice limited to the question of the sentence. Qureshi argued that the trial court should not have imposed a sentence higher than the minimum of 10 years because it did not find any of the aggravating factors listed under Section 32B of the NDPS Act.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Additional District & Sessions Judge convicted the appellant and sentenced him under Section 21(c) of the NDPS Act to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of eighteen years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2 lakh, and in default to suffer imprisonment for twelve months. The High Court of Calcutta partly allowed the appeal, maintaining the conviction but reducing the sentence to sixteen years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2 lakh, and in default of payment of such fine, the appellant was to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. The Supreme Court issued notice on 26.11.2018 limited to the quantum of the sentence.

Legal Framework

The core of the case revolves around Section 21(c) and Section 32B of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

Section 21 of the NDPS Act outlines punishments for offenses related to manufactured drugs and preparations. Specifically, Section 21(c) states:

“21. Punishment for contravention in relation to manufactured drugs and preparations. -Whoever, in contravention of any provision of this Act or any rule or order made or condition of licence granted thereunder, manufactures, possesses, sells, purchases, transports, imports inter -State, exports inter -State or uses any manufactured drug or any preparation containing any manufactured drug shall be punishable, (c) where the contravention involves commercial quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to twenty years and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees but which may extend to two lakh rupees: Provided that the court may, for reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a fine exceeding two lakh rupees.”

Section 32B of the NDPS Act, inserted in 2001, lists factors a court may consider when imposing a punishment higher than the minimum. It reads:

“32B. Factors to be taken into account for imposing higher than the minimum punishment. – Where a minimum term of imprisonment or amount of fine is prescribed for any offence committed under this Act, the court may, in addition to such factors as it may deem fit, take into account the following factors for imposing a punishment higher than the minimum term of imprisonment or amount of fine, namely: – (a) the use or threat of use of violence or arms by the offender; (b) the fact that the offender holds a public office and that he has taken advantage of that office in committing the offence; (c) the fact that the minors are affected by the offence or the minors are used for the commission of an offence; (d) the fact that the offence is committed in an educational institution or social service facility or in the immediate vicinity of such institution or faculty or in other place to which school children and students resort for educational, sports and social activities.; (e) the fact that the offender belongs to organised international or any other criminal group which is involved in the commission of the offences; and (f) the fact that the offender is involved in other illegal activities facilitated by commission of the offence.”

The Supreme Court noted that while the NDPS Act prescribes minimum and maximum punishments for various offenses, it does not specify a clear policy on how to determine the appropriate sentence within that range. The introduction of Section 32B aimed to rationalize the sentencing structure.

Arguments

The appellant, Rafiq Qureshi, argued that since the trial court did not find any of the factors listed in Section 32B (a) to (f) of the NDPS Act, the court could not impose a sentence higher than the minimum of 10 years. He contended that Section 32B was specifically introduced to guide courts in imposing higher sentences and, in the absence of those factors, only the minimum sentence should be awarded.

The respondent, the Narcotic Control Bureau, argued that Section 32B does not restrict the court’s discretion to consider other factors when deciding on a sentence higher than the minimum. They argued that the court could consider factors beyond those listed in Section 32B, such as the quantity of the drug involved.

The appellant relied on the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Raj Kumar Vajpayee versus State of U.P. [(2016) 95 ACRC 896], where the High Court held that without considering the factors mentioned in Section 32B, the Trial Court could not impose a punishment higher than the minimum.

The respondent relied on another judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Ram Asre Vs. State of U.P. (Jail Appeal No. 894 of 2015), where the High Court held that there is no compulsion for the court to consider the factors in Section 32B while awarding a punishment higher than the minimum.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues:

1. Whether, in the absence of any factors enumerated in Section 32B (a) to (f), the trial court could have awarded punishment higher than the minimum term of imprisonment.
2. Whether the trial court could not take any other factor into consideration apart from factors mentioned in clauses (a) to (f) while imposing punishment higher than the minimum term of imprisonment.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

The Court also considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 21(c) of the NDPS Act: This section specifies the punishment for contravention involving commercial quantities of manufactured drugs, with a minimum of 10 years imprisonment.
• Section 32B of the NDPS Act: This section lists factors that a court may consider when imposing a punishment higher than the minimum, but it also allows courts to consider other factors they deem fit.

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the trial court was justified in imposing a sentence higher than the minimum of 10 years, even though none of the factors listed in Section 32B (a) to (f) were present. The Court clarified that Section 32B allows courts to consider “such factors as it may deem fit,” in addition to the listed factors, when imposing a higher sentence. The Court emphasized that the discretion of the court is not limited to the factors listed in Section 32B.

The Supreme Court noted that the quantity of the drug involved can be a relevant factor when determining the appropriate sentence. In this case, the High Court had noted that the quantity of the drug was much higher than the commercial quantity, and this was a valid basis for imposing a higher sentence.

The Court also observed that while the trial court did not specifically mention the factors in Section 32B, it did consider the quantity of the drug, which is a relevant factor. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision to reduce the sentence from 18 years to 16 years but further reduced the sentence to 12 years, considering that the appellant was only a carrier.

The Supreme Court quoted the following from the judgment:

“The statutory scheme indicates that the decision to impose a punishment higher than the minimum is not confined or limited to the factors enumerated in clauses (a) to (f). The Court’s discretion to consider such factors as it may deem fit is not taken away or tinkered.”

“The specific words used in Section 32B that Court may, in addition to such factors as it may deem fit clearly indicates that Court’s discretion to take such factor as it may deem fit is not fettered by factors which are enumerated in clauses (a) to (f) of Section 32B.”

“In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the view that punishment awarded by the trial court of a sentence higher than the minimum relying on the quantity of substance cannot be faulted even though the Court had not adverted to the factors mentioned in clauses (a) to (b) as enumerated under Section 32B.”

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the interpretation of Section 32B of the NDPS Act. The Court emphasized that the language of the section allows for judicial discretion to consider factors beyond those specifically listed. The Court also considered the legislative intent behind the 2001 amendment, which introduced Section 32B, to rationalize the sentencing structure. The Court also considered the factual aspect of the quantity of substance that was recovered from the accused.

The Court’s reasoning was also influenced by the need to maintain a balance between the minimum and maximum punishment prescribed under the NDPS Act.

Key Takeaways

• Judicial Discretion: Courts have the discretion to consider factors beyond those listed in Section 32B of the NDPS Act when imposing a sentence higher than the minimum.
• Quantity of Substance: The quantity of the drug involved is a relevant factor that can be considered when determining the appropriate sentence.
• Rational Sentencing: Section 32B was introduced to rationalize the sentencing structure, but it does not limit the court’s discretion to consider other relevant factors.
• Minimum Sentence: While the minimum sentence is 10 years, it is not mandatory if the court deems fit to award a higher sentence.

Directions

The Supreme Court reduced the sentence of the appellant from 16 years to 12 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2 lakh and in default of payment of such fine, the appellant shall further undergo simple imprisonment for six months.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that Section 32B of the NDPS Act does not limit the court’s discretion to consider factors beyond those specifically listed when imposing a sentence higher than the minimum. This clarifies the scope of Section 32B and provides guidance to lower courts on sentencing in NDPS cases. This decision clarifies that the factors listed under Section 32B are not exhaustive and the court can consider other relevant factors.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Rafiq Qureshi vs. Narcotic Control Bureau clarifies the interpretation of Section 32B of the NDPS Act. The Court held that while Section 32B provides a list of factors for imposing higher sentences, it does not restrict a court’s ability to consider other relevant factors, such as the quantity of the drug involved. The Court reduced the sentence of the appellant to 12 years, emphasizing the need for a balanced approach in sentencing while upholding the conviction.