Refined Sentencing Framework for Intermediate-Quantity NDPS Convictions

Introduction

This case commentary examines the judgment in Gurjant Singh v. State of Punjab (Punjab & Haryana High Court, 02 April 2025), which upholds a conviction under Section 22(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act”) for carrying an intermediate quantity of Alprazolam tablets. The appellant, a 27-year-old sole breadwinner, was found in conscious possession of 115 loose intoxicating tablets. The trial court sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of ₹5,000. On appeal, the High Court confirmed the conviction but reduced the imprisonment to time served and significantly increased the fine to ₹1,05,000, partly earmarked for the High Court Bar Clerks Association.

Summary of the Judgment

The appellant did not contest guilt but sought leniency in sentencing.
Prosecution evidence established lawful search, seizure and chain of custody: three seals, inventory by magistrate, unbroken FSL report confirming intermediate quantity of Alprazolam.
All mandatory NDPS procedural safeguards (Sections 50, 52, 53, 100 Cr.P.C. for NDPS Act) were complied with.
Conviction under Section 22(b) NDPS Act affirmed.
Sentence reduced to the two months already served; fine increased to ₹1,05,000 (₹1,00,000 to Bar Clerks Association, ₹5,000 to trial court).
Failure to pay fine within two months would result in dismissal of the appeal.

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Relevant Authority

Although the judgment does not specifically name earlier decisions, it rests on established NDPS jurisprudence:

State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh – principles of unbroken chain of custody and multiple seals to prevent tampering.
Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI – binding nature of the FSL report under Section 293 Cr.P.C. when not challenged.
Bhoora Singh v. State of Haryana – sentencing norms for intermediate quantity under the NDPS Act.
Union of India v. Kanhaiya Lal – requirement of independent witness for recovery, and steps when none are available.

Legal Reasoning

1. Proof of Possession: The court emphasized “conscious possession”—the appellant threw the packet upon spotting police, evincing a guilty mind and control over the contraband.

2. Procedural Compliance: Seizure at the spot by ASI Palwinder Singh (PW2), branding of the sealed parcel with three distinct seals (IO, SHO, Magistrate), prompt forwarding to RTFSL, and certification under Section 65-B Indian Evidence Act ensured the integrity of evidence.

3. Intermediate Quantity Determination: RTFSL report classified 115 tablets of Alprazolam as an “intermediate quantity” as per Schedule-I of the NDPS Act, triggering Section 22(b) charges (punishment between rigorous imprisonment of 10 years–20 years and fine).

4. Sentencing Adjustments: • Recognition of 4-year delay in trial. • Appellant’s youth (27 years), family responsibilities, clean record, and prior foreign employment. • Balancing deterrence with humanitarian considerations, the court invoked its inherent power to modify sentence under Section 386(b) Cr.P.C.

Impact on Future Cases

Clarifies that compliance with NDPS procedural safeguards (Section 50 searches, inventory, multi‐seal) is indispensable and fatal to defence if properly followed.
Reinforces the binding character of FSL reports when issued under Section 293 Cr.P.C. and accompanied by Section 65-B certification.
Sets a precedent for flexible sentencing in intermediate‐quantity cases: imprisonment may be curtailed based on time served and personal circumstances, while financial deterrents can be enhanced.
Encourages trial judges and appellate courts to employ fines strategically for social welfare (e.g., Bar Clerks Association) under Section 28 NDPS Act.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Conscious Possession: Knowing control over an object—in this case, pills the accused physically discarded when approached by police.
Intermediate Quantity: Under NDPS Schedules, certain drug amounts are “small” (lighter penalties), “intermediate” (mid‐range penalties), or “commercial” (heaviest penalties).
Chain of Custody: A documented process to secure seized articles (police officer’s seal, SHO’s seal, magistrate’s seal) to prevent tampering and ensure admissibility.
Section 65-B Certificate: A statutory document that validates forensic reports as admissible electronic records.
Rigorous Imprisonment (R.I.): Confinement with compulsory labor, as contrasted with Simple Imprisonment (S.I.), which may not require work.

Conclusion

The Gurjant Singh decision underscores the Supreme Court and High Courts’ stringent approach to procedural fidelity in NDPS prosecutions while acknowledging the appellate courts’ power to temper sentences on humanitarian grounds. By upholding the conviction under Section 22(b) and recalibrating the punishment to reflect both societal deterrence and individual circumstances, this judgment marks a nuanced evolution in NDPS sentencing jurisprudence. It will guide trial and appellate courts in balancing the rigors of narcotics control with principles of proportionality and reformative justice.