IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL  APPEAL  NO. 164  OF 2007

SANJAY ... APPELLANT(S) :VERSUS:

STATE OF M.P. ... RESPONDENT(S) WITH

CRIMINAL  APPEAL  NO. 165  OF 2007

GANGARAM ... APPELLANT(S) :VERSUS:

STATE OF M.P. ... RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

Appellants  were  convicted  for  commission  of  an  offence  purported  to  be

under  Section  8  read  with  Section  21  of  the  Narcotic  Drugs  and  Psychotropic

Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act, for short), having been found in possession of 12

gms. of the contraband from each of them.  

Our attention has  been drawn to Section 21(a)  and (b)  of  the NDPS Act

which read as under:

“21. Whoever, in contravention of any provision 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,-

-2-

(a) where the contravention involves small quantity, with

rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months,

or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both;

(b) where the contravention involves quantity, lesser than

commercial quantity but greater than small quantity, with rigorous

imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years and with

fine which may extend to one lakh rupees.”

Indisputably, the appellants are in custody since 28.2.2000 i.e. for a period of

more than eight years.  Having  regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, we

are of the opinion that they did not deserve maximum punishment prescribed under

Section 21(b) of the NDPS Act, applying the doctrine of proportionality in imposing

the sentence vis-a-vis the object and purport thereof as has been provided for in the

NDPS Act.

We are, therefore, of the opinion that interest of justice would be subserved

if  the  sentence  imposed  upon  the   appellants  is  reduced  to  the  period  already

undergone by them, including for the default clause.

-3-

The appellants are in jail. They are directed to be set at liberty forthwith.   

The appeals are allowed accordingly.

..........................J (S.B. SINHA)

..........................J   (LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA)    NEW DELHI, APRIL 30, 2008.