Supreme Court Reduces Sentence for NDPS Act Offender: M. Sampat vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2021)

Date of the Judgment: April 05, 2021
Citation: 2021 INSC 177
Judges: Hon’ble Justices Indira Banerjee and Krishna Murari.
Can a court reduce the sentence of an individual convicted under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, when the individual is a minor player in the crime? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in the case of *M. Sampat vs. The State of Chhattisgarh*. The court considered whether the High Court was correct in reducing the sentence from 20 years to 15 years, and whether further reduction was warranted. The judgment was authored by Justice Indira Banerjee, with Justice Krishna Murari concurring.

Case Background

On September 14, 2009, police received information about individuals transporting ‘Ganja’ (cannabis) in a Maruti Omni Van and a truck. Three individuals in the Maruti Omni Van were apprehended with 26 kg of ‘Ganja’ but were later acquitted. Following this, a truck with registration number 38 L 999, where the Appellant, M. Sampat, was employed, was intercepted. The truck driver, T. Narsaiya, attempted to flee but was caught. A search of the truck revealed 3327 kg of ‘Ganja’ concealed under onion bags. Both T. Narsaiya and M. Sampat were arrested and charged under the NDPS Act.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Special Judge, NDPS Act, Bastar at Jagdalpur, found both M. Sampat and T. Narsaiya guilty under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, sentencing them to 20 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2 lakhs. Both appealed to the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur. While the appeal was pending, T. Narsaiya died. The High Court upheld M. Sampat’s conviction but reduced the sentence to 15 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1 lakh. M. Sampat then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case revolves around Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. This section deals with offenses related to cannabis, including ‘Ganja’. It states that:

“whoever, in contravention of any provision of this Act or any rule or order made or condition of a licence granted thereunder, produces, manufactures, possesses, sells, purchases, transports, imports inter-State, imports into India or exports from India or uses cannabis, shall be punishable—…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 and which may extend to two lakh rupees.”

This provision prescribes a minimum of 10 years imprisonment, which can extend to 20 years, and a fine between one to two lakh rupees for offenses involving cannabis.

Arguments

Arguments by the Appellant (M. Sampat):

• M. Sampat was merely a poor conductor (helper) on the truck, aged 22/23 at the time of the incident.
• He was not the owner of the truck and had no knowledge of the ‘Ganja’ being transported.
• He did not attempt to abscond, unlike the driver, T. Narsaiya.
• He is a first-time offender and comes from a poor financial background.
• Given his position as a helper, he had no control over the truck’s contents and could not have prevented the offense.

Arguments by the Respondent (State of Chhattisgarh):

• A large quantity of ‘Ganja’ (3327 kg) was being transported in the truck.
• M. Sampat was present in the truck when it was intercepted by the police.
• The truck was full of ‘Ganja’, camouflaged with a few onion bags at the top, making it difficult for anyone in the truck to be unaware.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the primary issue before the court was:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in reducing the sentence to 15 years, and whether further reduction was warranted given the circumstances of the appellant.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates how the Court decided the issue:

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not explicitly cite any specific cases or books in its judgment. The judgment primarily relied on the facts of the case and the legal provisions of the NDPS Act.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act: The Court considered the provision to understand the minimum and maximum punishment but reduced the sentence considering the specific circumstances of the case.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• Role of the Appellant: The Court emphasized that M. Sampat was merely a helper on the truck, not the owner or a key player in the crime.
• Age and Financial Condition: The Court noted that M. Sampat was a young man (22/23 years old) from a poor financial background.
• Lack of Evidence: There was no definite evidence to show that M. Sampat knowingly committed the offense.
• First-Time Offender: M. Sampat was a first-time offender, which the court took into account.
• Mitigating Circumstances: The Court considered that M. Sampat did not attempt to abscond and remained in jail, indicating his poor financial condition.

Logical Reasoning:

The court considered the arguments made by the Amicus Curiae, Ms. Priyanjali Singh, that the appellant was not the owner of the vehicle and that nothing was recovered from his possession. The court also considered that the appellant was a first-time offender and that he was only 22/23 years of age at the time of the incident. The court observed that the appellant had remained in jail and filed a jail petition, which showed his poor financial condition. The court also took note of the fact that the driver of the vehicle had attempted to flee, whereas the appellant had not. The court concluded that the appellant could not have had any say in the articles loaded in the truck and that he was merely a mute spectator to the commission of the offense. The court, therefore, deemed it appropriate to reduce the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone.

The Court’s reasoning was based on the principle of proportionality, which requires that the punishment should fit the crime and the circumstances of the offender. The court also took into consideration the principle of leniency, which states that in cases of doubt, the benefit should be given to the accused.

The Supreme Court, in its judgment, stated:

“Having regard to the huge quantity (3332 kgs.) of ‘Ganja’ (cannabis) carried on the truck, it is difficult to accept Ms. Priyanjali Singh’s argument that the Appellant, an employee of the truck, described as a conductor, but actually a helper, was not even aware of the fact that ‘Ganja’ was being carried in the truck.”

“There is no definite evidence to establish that the Appellant knowingly committed the offence. However presumption, having regard to the surrounding circumstances has resulted in his conviction.”

“Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the Appellant, an indigent helper on a truck, only 22/23 years of age at the time of incident and a first time offender, and considering that nothing was recovered from his custody except for documents pertaining to the vehicle, of which he was a helper (described as conductor), we deem it appropriate to reduce the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone, which in any case, far exceeds the minimum sentence of imprisonment of 10 years.”

The court did not discuss any alternative interpretations of the law or the facts of the case. The court’s decision was based on its assessment of the facts and circumstances of the case and its application of the law.

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court reduced the sentence for an individual convicted under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, considering the individual’s role as a minor player in the crime.
• The Court emphasized that the punishment should be proportionate to the offense and the offender’s circumstances.
• The judgment highlights that courts should consider mitigating factors such as age, financial condition, and the extent of involvement in the crime while determining the sentence under the NDPS Act.
• The court considered that the appellant was a first-time offender and that he was only 22/23 years of age at the time of the incident.
• The court also took note of the fact that the driver of the vehicle had attempted to flee, whereas the appellant had not.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the Appellant shall be set free.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that while the NDPS Act prescribes minimum sentences, courts have the discretion to reduce sentences based on the specific facts and circumstances of the case, especially when the offender is a minor player, a first-time offender, and there are mitigating circumstances. This judgment reinforces the principle that punishment should be proportionate to the crime and the offender’s culpability. There is no change in the previous position of law, but this judgment clarifies the application of the law in cases involving minor players in drug trafficking.

Conclusion

In *M. Sampat vs. The State of Chhattisgarh*, the Supreme Court reduced the sentence of M. Sampat, a helper in a truck carrying a large quantity of ‘Ganja’, to the period already undergone. The Court considered his young age, poor financial condition, lack of direct involvement, and first-time offender status. This judgment emphasizes the importance of proportionality in sentencing and the need to consider mitigating factors in NDPS Act cases.