Supreme Court Reduces Sentence in NDPS Act Case: Sk. Sakkar @ Mannan vs. State of West Bengal (2021)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 03 February 2021
Citation: (2021) INSC 27
Judges: N.V. Ramana, J., Surya Kant, J., Aniruddha Bose, J. The judgment was authored by Justice Surya Kant.

Can a court reduce a sentence for drug-related offenses even after a conviction? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The core issue was whether the High Court’s decision to uphold a five-year rigorous imprisonment sentence for possession of ganja was appropriate, given the appellant’s mitigating circumstances and the fact that the offense occurred before the 2001 amendment to the NDPS Act. The Supreme Court, in this case, considered the mitigating circumstances and reduced the sentence to the period already undergone by the appellant.

Case Background

On 16 November 1997, based on secret information, the Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) of Birbhum conducted a raid and intercepted an Ambassador car bearing registration number BRW 312. The car was stopped in a forest area. While most of the occupants managed to flee, two individuals, including the appellant, Sk. Sakkar @ Mannan, were apprehended. During the search, 11 kilograms of ganja were seized. Following the seizure, the suspects were interrogated, and a formal First Information Report (FIR) was registered at Police Station Sadaipur. A charge sheet was submitted against five persons, including the appellant.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Special Judge, Birbhum, convicted the appellant and his co-accused under Section 20 of the NDPS Act, except for one Kalachand Saha, who was not charge-sheeted. The appellant appealed to the High Court of Calcutta, arguing that the prosecution’s case was weak and that the testimonies of the witnesses were not credible. The High Court scrutinized the evidence and upheld the conviction and sentence of the appellant. However, it acquitted the other co-accused, noting they were not arrested at the spot and were implicated based on the confessional statements of the arrested individuals. The appellant then approached the Supreme Court through a Special Leave Petition, which was granted. The Supreme Court suspended the appellant’s sentence and released him on bail, considering he had already served a portion of his sentence.

Legal Framework

The case revolves around Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, specifically the unamended version applicable at the time of the offense in 1997. The provision reads as follows:

“20. Punishment for contravention in relation to cannabis plant and cannabis. Whoever, in contravention of any provision of this Act or any rule or order made or condition of license granted thereunder-
(a) cultivates any cannabis plant; or
(b) produces, manufactures, possesses, sells, purchases, transports, imports inter-State, exports inter-State or uses cannabis, shall be punishable,-
(i) where such contravention relates to ganja or the cultivation of cannabis plant, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to fifty thousand rupees;
(ii) where such contravention relates to cannabis other than ganja, 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:
Provided that the court may, for reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a fine exceeding two lakh rupees.”

This section specifies the penalties for offenses related to cannabis, distinguishing between ganja and other forms of cannabis. At the time of the offense, the punishment for ganja possession was a maximum of five years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of up to Rs. 50,000, with no minimum mandatory sentence.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The courts below did not correctly appreciate the statements of the witnesses or the evidence, including the seizure memo.
• The testimonies of key witnesses (PW-2, PW-3, and PW-8) were declared hostile, weakening the prosecution’s case.
• The appellant’s case is similar to his co-accused who were acquitted, therefore, he should also be acquitted.
• The appellant has suffered a protracted trial for more than 23 years.
• The appellant was not involved in any other case under the NDPS Act or other Penal Laws.
• The appellant has already undergone actual sentence of 2 years 4 months and 16 days out of the total sentence of five years.
• The appellant has not misused the concession of bail granted by the Supreme Court.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The arguments made by the appellant are essentially questions of fact or an attempt to re-appreciate the evidence, which is beyond the scope of the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution.
• The appellant was apprehended at the spot and found in conscious possession of the ganja, unlike the acquitted co-accused.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues, but the core issue revolved around whether the sentence of five years rigorous imprisonment was appropriate given the mitigating circumstances and the provisions of Section 20 of the NDPS Act as it stood in 1997.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The cases of Surendra Puri v. State of Uttarakhand, (2016) 13 SCC 274, Mangu Khan and Others v. State of Rajasthan (2005) 10 SCC 374 and Pritam Singh v. State, AIR 1950 SC 169 were cited to emphasize that the Supreme Court should not re-appreciate evidence under Article 136 of the Constitution. The court relied on these cases to reject the appellant’s argument that the lower courts did not correctly appreciate the evidence.
• The unamended Section 20 of the NDPS Act was directly applied to determine the applicable punishment, given the offense occurred before the 2001 amendment. The court used this provision to determine that there was no minimum mandatory sentence for the offense of possession of ganja at the time of the offense.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily influenced by the mitigating circumstances presented by the appellant. The fact that the appellant had undergone a protracted trial of more than 23 years, had no prior convictions, had already served a significant portion of his sentence, and had complied with bail conditions weighed heavily in the court’s decision to reduce the sentence. Additionally, the court considered that the offense occurred before the 2001 amendment to the NDPS Act, which meant there was no minimum mandatory sentence applicable in this case. The court’s decision reflects a balanced approach, considering both the severity of the offense and the personal circumstances of the appellant.

Logical Reasoning:

Key Takeaways

• Mitigating circumstances, such as a protracted trial, no prior convictions, and time already served, can lead to a reduction in sentence even in cases under the NDPS Act.
• The courts must consider the specific legal provisions applicable at the time of the offense, especially in cases involving amendments to the law.
• The Supreme Court is generally reluctant to re-appreciate evidence in appeals under Article 136 of the Constitution, unless there are compelling reasons to do so.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the appellant’s sentence be reduced to the period already undergone. The bail bond of the appellant was discharged. However, the appellant was directed to pay the fine of Rs. 20,000 within two months, and in default, he would be liable to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that mitigating circumstances can be considered to reduce a sentence under the NDPS Act, especially when the offense occurred before the 2001 amendment, which introduced minimum mandatory sentences. This case clarifies that the courts have the discretion to reduce sentences based on individual circumstances and that the Supreme Court will not re-appreciate evidence unless necessary.

Conclusion

In the case of Sk. Sakkar @ Mannan vs. State of West Bengal, the Supreme Court modified the High Court’s judgment, reducing the appellant’s sentence to the period already undergone. This decision highlights the importance of considering mitigating circumstances and the specific legal provisions applicable at the time of the offense. The Court’s decision emphasizes a balanced approach, considering both the severity of the offense and the individual circumstances of the appellant.