Supreme Court Upholds Consecutive Sentences in NDPS Act Cases: Mohd Zahid vs State (2021)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 07 December 2021
Citation: (2021) INSC 738
Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and B.V. Nagarathna, J.

Can a person convicted in two separate trials under the NDPS Act, for different offenses, serve their sentences concurrently? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question regarding the interpretation of Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which deals with sentences on offenders already serving time. The court clarified that unless specifically directed by the court, sentences in separate trials for separate offenses should run consecutively, not concurrently. This judgment has significant implications for individuals convicted of multiple drug-related offenses.

The bench comprised Justices M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna.

Case Background

The appellant, Mohd Zahid, a Pakistani national, was initially arrested on 15 June 1999, in connection with FIR No. 134/1999 in Amritsar, Punjab, for importing 4 kg of heroin. He was convicted and sentenced to 12 years of rigorous imprisonment (RI) by the Amritsar Court on 8 December 2000. Subsequently, another FIR No. 43/1999 was filed against him in New Delhi for the recovery of 750 grams of heroin. In this second case, he was convicted on 30 January 2002, under Section 29 read with Section 21(c) of the NDPS Act and sentenced to 15 years RI, due to his previous conviction, as per Section 31(ii) of the NDPS Act. The Delhi court did not specify whether the sentences would run concurrently or consecutively.

Timeline:

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The appellant’s counsel argued that since the appellant had already served 12 years in the Amritsar case (FIR No. 134/1999) and 6 years and 2 months in the Delhi case (FIR No. 43/1999), he should not be punished twice for the same offense.
• It was contended that the sentences in both cases should run concurrently, especially since the Delhi court did not specify whether the sentences should run concurrently or consecutively.
• The appellant’s counsel also highlighted that the appellant is a foreign national, who has been incarcerated for nearly 22 years, and his conduct in jail has been good.
• It was submitted that the period of under-trial detention from 17.09.1999 to 14.02.2002 was not taken into consideration.
• Reliance was placed on Section 427 of the CrPC, arguing that the appellant should be given the benefit of concurrent sentences.

Respondent’s Submissions:

• The respondent’s counsel argued that the general rule is that sentences imposed in separate trials for separate offenses should run consecutively, especially when the offenses do not arise from the same transaction.
• Reliance was placed on Section 427 of CrPC, stating that the power to order concurrent sentences is discretionary and should be exercised judiciously.
• It was emphasized that the sentencing court did not direct the sentences to run concurrently, and therefore, they should run consecutively.
• The respondent contended that the appellant is a habitual offender with convictions for possessing 4 kg and 750 grams of heroin and is not entitled to any leniency.
• The respondent cited several Supreme Court decisions, including Mohd. Akhtar Hussain alias Ibrahim Ahmed Bhatti Vs. Assistant Collector of Customs (Prevention), Ahmedabad & Anr. (1988) 4 SCC 183, Ranjit Singh Vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh & Anr. (1991) 4 SCC 304, V.K. Bansal Vs. State of Haryana & Anr. (2013) 7 SCC 211, Neera Yadav Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2017) 8 SCC 757, Vicky @ Vikas Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2020) 11 SCC 540, Gurdev Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2021) 6 SCC 558, Sharad Hiru Kolambe Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2018) 18 SCC 718, and Rajpal Vs. Om Prakash & Anr. (2019) 17 SCC 809, to support the argument for consecutive sentences.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the sentences imposed against the appellant by two different courts in two different trials, but against the same accused, should run concurrently or consecutively.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Court considered the following authorities:

Cases:

• Mohd. Akhtar Hussain alias Ibrahim Ahmed Bhatti Vs. Assistant Collector of Customs (Prevention), Ahmedabad & Anr. (1988) 4 SCC 183 – Supreme Court of India: This case was cited to highlight that if the transactions relating to offenses are not the same, the subsequent sentence should run consecutively.
• Ranjit Singh Vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh & Anr. (1991) 4 SCC 304 – Supreme Court of India: This case was referred to explain the interpretation of Section 427 CrPC and the difference between sentences for a fixed term and life imprisonment.
• V.K. Bansal Vs. State of Haryana & Anr. (2013) 7 SCC 211 – Supreme Court of India: This case was cited to emphasize that the power under Section 427(1) CrPC is discretionary and should be exercised judiciously.
• Neera Yadav Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2017) 8 SCC 757 – Supreme Court of India: This case was used to reiterate that concurrent sentences cannot be awarded if convictions relate to different transactions.
• Vicky @ Vikas Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2020) 11 SCC 540 – Supreme Court of India: This case was cited to support the general rule that sentences should run consecutively unless there is a specific order to the contrary.
• Gurdev Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2021) 6 SCC 558 – Supreme Court of India: This case was cited to support the general rule that sentences should run consecutively unless there is a specific order to the contrary.
• Sharad Hiru Kolambe Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2018) 18 SCC 718 – Supreme Court of India: This case was used to emphasize that the normal principle is that punishments would commence one after the expiration of the other unless the court directs otherwise.
• Rajpal Vs. Om Prakash & Anr. (2019) 17 SCC 809 – Supreme Court of India: This case was cited to support the general rule that sentences should run consecutively unless there is a specific order to the contrary.
• Gulam Mohammad Malik Vs. State of Gujarat and Anr. (2018) 14 SCC 473 – Supreme Court of India: This case was cited to illustrate a situation where the court ordered concurrent sentences, but it was based on specific facts and circumstances.

Legal Provisions:

• Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC): This section deals with sentences on offenders already sentenced for another offense. It states that subsequent sentences should run consecutively unless the court directs otherwise.
• Section 21 of the NDPS Act: Deals with punishment for contravention in relation to manufactured drugs and preparations.
• Section 23 of the NDPS Act: Deals with punishment for illegal import, export, or transshipment of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.
• Section 29 of the NDPS Act: Deals with punishment for abetment and criminal conspiracy.
• Section 31(ii) of the NDPS Act: Deals with enhanced punishment for offences after previous conviction.

Authority Consideration Table

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court relied on Mohd. Akhtar Hussain (1988) 4 SCC 183* to establish that if offenses arise from different transactions, sentences should run consecutively.
• The Court used Ranjit Singh (1991) 4 SCC 304* to interpret Section 427 of CrPC, clarifying the difference between fixed-term sentences and life imprisonment.
• The Court referred to V.K. Bansal (2013) 7 SCC 211* to underscore that the power under Section 427(1) of CrPC is discretionary and must be exercised judiciously.
• The Court cited Neera Yadav (2017) 8 SCC 757* to support its position that concurrent sentences are not awarded for different transactions.
• The Court followed the principles laid down in Sharad Hiru Kolambe (2018) 18 SCC 718* to support the general rule that punishments would commence one after the expiration of the other.
• The Court distinguished Gulam Mohammad Malik (2018) 14 SCC 473* by noting that it was a case with specific facts where concurrent sentences were ordered, unlike the present case.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

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

• The General Rule of Consecutive Sentences: The court emphasized that as per Section 427 of CrPC, sentences for separate offenses should run consecutively unless there is a specific order to the contrary.
• Separate Transactions: The court noted that the appellant was convicted in two separate trials for offenses that did not arise from the same transaction.
• Lack of Specific Order for Concurrent Sentences: The Delhi court did not specify that the sentences should run concurrently, which further supported the application of the general rule.
• Seriousness of NDPS Act Offenses: The court highlighted the grave nature of offenses under the NDPS Act and the need to deter drug trafficking.
• Habitual Offender: The court considered the appellant’s previous conviction and the significant quantity of heroin involved in both cases, indicating a pattern of drug trafficking.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court:

Fact:Law Ratio:

The court’s reasoning was heavily based on legal provisions and precedents, with a lesser emphasis on the specific facts of the case.

Logical Reasoning

Judgment

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, ruling that the sentences imposed in the two separate trials should run consecutively. The Court reasoned that:

• The general rule under Section 427(1) of the CrPC is that when a person already undergoing a sentence is sentenced on a subsequent conviction, the subsequent sentence commences at the expiration of the previous sentence, unless the court directs otherwise.
• In this case, the appellant was convicted in two separate trials for offenses arising from different transactions.
• The Delhi court did not issue a specific order directing the sentences to run concurrently.
• The court has the discretion to order concurrent sentences but must exercise this power judiciously.
• Considering the seriousness of the offenses under the NDPS Act and the appellant’s history of drug trafficking, the court found no reason to exercise its discretion in favor of concurrent sentences.

The Court emphasized that “those persons who are dealing in narcotic drugs are instruments in causing death or in inflicting death blow to a number of innocent young victims who are vulnerable. Such accused causes deleterious effects and deadly impact on the society. They are hazard to the society.”

The Court also stated, “while awarding the sentence or punishment in case of NDPS Act, the interest of the society as a whole is required to be taken into consideration.”

The Court further stated that, “even while exercising discretion under Section 427 of Cr.PC to run subsequent sentence concurrently with the previous sentence, the discretion is to be exercised judiciously and depending upon the offence/offences committed.”

Key Takeaways

• Sentences for separate offenses under the NDPS Act will generally run consecutively unless a specific court order directs otherwise.
• Courts are unlikely to grant concurrent sentences to individuals convicted of multiple drug trafficking offenses, given the seriousness of these crimes.
• The judgment reinforces the strict approach towards drug-related offenses and the need for deterrence.
• Individuals facing multiple charges under the NDPS Act should be aware that they may have to serve their sentences consecutively, potentially leading to longer periods of incarceration.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.

Specific Amendments Analysis

This judgment does not discuss any specific amendments.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that sentences for separate offenses under the NDPS Act, arising from different transactions, will run consecutively unless the court specifically orders them to run concurrently. This judgment reinforces the existing legal position under Section 427 of CrPC and clarifies that discretion to order concurrent sentences should be exercised judiciously, especially in cases involving serious offenses like drug trafficking. There is no change in the previous position of law, but the judgment emphasizes the strict approach that courts should take in NDPS cases.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the consecutive sentences imposed on Mohd Zahid for separate offenses under the NDPS Act. The Court reaffirmed that sentences for distinct offenses, not arising from the same transaction, should run consecutively unless a specific order is made for concurrent sentences. This judgment underscores the strict stance against drug trafficking and the importance of deterring such crimes through rigorous enforcement of sentencing guidelines.