Chhattisgarh HC Upholds NDPS Conviction Based on Police Testimony, Reduces Sentence for Lack of Specific Reasons: S.21(c) NDPS Act - 2025-04-02

Latest Legal Developments.

Chhattisgarh High Court Upholds NDPS Conviction but Reduces Sentence in Cough Syrup Case

Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh – In a recent judgment, a division bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court, comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , upheld the conviction of two individuals, Ambika Vishwakarma and Narayan Das , under Section 21(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). However, the court reduced their sentence from 12 years to 10 years rigorous imprisonment, citing the trial court's failure to provide specific reasons for imposing a sentence higher than the minimum.

Case Overview

The case originated from the seizure of 236 bottles of cough syrup containing Codeine Phosphate from Vishwakarma and Das on September 20, 2018. Police action was initiated based on information received from an informant, leading to the arrest of the accused and the seizure of the contraband. The trial court convicted them under Section 21(c) of the NDPS Act, sentencing them to 12 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,10,000 each.

Vishwakarma and Das subsequently filed criminal appeals challenging their conviction and sentence, which were heard together by the High Court.

Arguments Presented

Appellants' Counsel argued that the trial court erred in classifying the seized quantity as "commercial quantity," contending it should have been considered "intermediate." They relied on judgments arguing that only the actual Codeine Phosphate content, not the entire syrup volume, should be considered. Further arguments included the prosecution's failure to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt due to hostile independent witnesses, non-compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act regarding search procedures, and excessive sentencing without specific justification.

State's Counsel countered by citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Hira Singh v. Union of India , which clarified that the entire weight of the mixture, including neutral substances, is considered when determining the quantity of narcotic drugs. The State argued that despite hostile witnesses, the Investigating Officer's (IO) testimony and seizure documents proved the case. They asserted that Section 50 compliance was met and supported the trial court's judgment.

Court's Observations and Decision

The High Court acknowledged that independent witnesses turned hostile but emphasized that their signatures on seizure documents and the "reliable coherent evidence" of the Investigating Officer, Amit Gupta (PW-7), were crucial. The court cited Supreme Court precedents, including Nathusingh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh , stating that police witness evidence is credible if believable, even without independent support.

Addressing the legality of the investigation, the court affirmed the Sub-Inspector's authority under Section 42(1) of the NDPS Act to conduct investigations. Regarding Section 50 compliance, the court noted the IO's testimony confirming that the accused were informed of their right to be searched by a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate and consented to be searched by the police officer.

Crucially, the court upheld the "commercial quantity" classification based on Hira Singh , rejecting the argument to exclude the syrup's neutral substance. The judgment explicitly stated, "in the light of Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Case of Hira Singh (supra), we are of the considered opinion that the quantity so seized from the possession of the accused/ appellants would fall under the category of commercial quantity."

However, on the issue of sentencing, the High Court agreed with the appellants. Referencing Section 32B of the NDPS Act and the Supreme Court's decision in Rafiq Qureshi v. Narcotic Control Bureau , the court noted the absence of "special reason" for awarding a sentence exceeding the minimum. Section 32B outlines specific factors for higher-than-minimum sentences, none of which were cited by the trial court.

> "Thus in a case where Court imposes a punishment higher than minimum relying on a irrelevant factor and no other factor as enumerated in Section 32B(a to f) are present award of sentence higher than minimum can be interfered with." - Rafiq Qureshi v. Narcotic Control Bureau

Consequently, while upholding the conviction, the High Court reduced the rigorous imprisonment sentence to 10 years and modified the default imprisonment for non-payment of fine from three years to one year.

Implications

The judgment reinforces the precedent set by Hira Singh concerning the determination of drug quantity in mixtures under the NDPS Act. It also underscores the importance of providing specific and valid reasons, as outlined in Section 32B of the NDPS Act, when imposing sentences exceeding the minimum prescribed, even in cases involving commercial quantities of narcotics. The ruling provides partial relief to the appellants by reducing their sentence while affirming the conviction based on police testimony and established legal principles concerning drug quantity and investigation procedures under the NDPS Act.

The criminal appeals were "partly allowed," and the appellants, currently in jail, are directed to serve the modified sentence. The Registry was instructed to provide copies of the judgment to relevant parties, including the trial court and jail authorities, and to inform the appellants of their right to appeal to the Supreme Court.