A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The judgment in Narayan Das v. State of Chhattisgarh, [2025] 8 S.C.R. 289 : 2025 INSC 872 raises important questions on sentencing discretion under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The case emerged from the recovery of 236 vials of codeine-based cough syrup, leading to the petitioner’s conviction under Section 21(c) of the NDPS Act. The trial court imposed 12 years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹1,00,000, which the High Court reduced to the statutory minimum of 10 years, holding that the trial court must record specific reasons as per Section 32-B NDPS Act to award more than the minimum sentence. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitioner’s appeal but clarified the law on Section 32-B NDPS Act. The Court held that the High Court misinterpreted Section 32-B by assuming that the minimum sentence must be treated as the maximum unless aggravating factors listed under clauses (a) to (f) were present. The apex court emphasized that Section 32-B is illustrative and not exhaustive. Courts may rely on other relevant factors, such as the quantity of contraband, nature of the substance, and antecedents of the accused, in deciding sentencing severity. The Court relied upon precedents like Rafiq Qureshi v. NCB, (2019) 6 SCC 492, Sakshi v. Union of India, (2004) 5 SCC 518, and Gurdev Singh v. State of Punjab, (2021) 6 SCC 558. The judgment therefore settles the principle that minimum punishment under NDPS Act is not equivalent to maximum punishment, and that trial courts possess broad sentencing discretion guided by both statutory and judicially recognized factors. However, despite the clarification, the Supreme Court did not interfere with the High Court’s reduction of the sentence from 12 to 10 years.

Keywords: NDPS Act; Section 32-B interpretation; Sentencing discretion; Minimum vs maximum punishment; Codeine phosphate; Rafiq Qureshi precedent; High Court’s misconception; Commercial quantity; Judicial sentencing powers.

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgement Cause Title: Narayan Das v. State of Chhattisgarh

ii) Case Number: Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 10310 of 2025

iii) Judgement Date: 17 July 2025

iv) Court: Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum: Hon’ble Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan

vi) Author: Justice J.B. Pardiwala

vii) Citation: [2025] 8 S.C.R. 289 : 2025 INSC 872

viii) Legal Provisions Involved:

• Section 21(c), NDPS Act, 1985 – Punishment for contravention in relation to manufactured drugs and preparations involving commercial quantity.

• Section 32-B, NDPS Act, 1985 – Factors to be taken into account for imposing punishment higher than the minimum.

ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case (if any): None. Misinterpretation of Rafiq Qureshi was corrected.

x) Case is Related to which Law Subjects: Criminal Law, Narcotics Law, Sentencing Jurisprudence, Statutory Interpretation.

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The NDPS Act is a special statute prescribing stringent punishments for narcotics trafficking. Unlike general penal laws, it prescribes mandatory minimum sentences with discretion to enhance based on aggravating circumstances. Section 32-B, inserted by the 2001 amendment, sought to rationalize sentencing by listing aggravating factors. However, its interpretation caused judicial divergence. The present case resolves whether factors in Section 32-B are exhaustive or illustrative, and whether the minimum sentence should be treated as maximum absent these factors.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

On 20 September 2018, police acting on intelligence intercepted Narayan Das and co-accused Ambika Vishwakarma near Parsa. A search led to recovery of 236 vials of codeine phosphate-based cough syrup (R.C. Kuff, Codectus, Elderqurex). Each vial contained 100ml, making it a commercial quantity under NDPS.

The Special NDPS Court at Ambikapur convicted the petitioner under Section 21(c) NDPS Act and sentenced him to 12 years’ rigorous imprisonment with fine of ₹1 lakh.

The petitioner appealed. The Chhattisgarh High Court upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence to 10 years, holding that in the absence of reasons satisfying Section 32-B factors, the sentence could not exceed the minimum.

The petitioner filed SLP before the Supreme Court, challenging conviction and seizure irregularities.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i) Whether the trial court must mandatorily rely on Section 32-B factors (clauses a–f) before imposing punishment higher than the statutory minimum under NDPS Act?

ii) Whether the High Court correctly treated minimum sentence as maximum sentence absent Section 32-B factors?

iii) Whether quantity of contraband and other circumstances can independently justify enhanced punishment beyond minimum?

F) PETITIONER/ APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i) Counsel argued that the seizure was vitiated due to procedural lapses under Sections 42 and 50 NDPS Act, rendering recovery unreliable.

ii) It was urged that the trial court imposed 12 years’ imprisonment without recording specific reasons, violating the requirement under Section 32-B.

iii) Relying on Rafiq Qureshi v. NCB, (2019) 6 SCC 492, the petitioner contended that absence of factors in Section 32-B meant courts could not award punishment higher than minimum.

iv) It was submitted that minimum punishment of 10 years was intended by legislature to be the normal sentence, and departure required strict statutory compliance.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The State contended that seizure was valid and commercial quantity of contraband was proved.

ii) It was argued that Section 32-B is illustrative, not exhaustive. The trial court could consider other aggravating factors such as quantity and nature of drug.

iii) Reliance was placed on Gurdev Singh v. State of Punjab, (2021) 6 SCC 558, where the Supreme Court held that quantity is a relevant factor for sentencing discretion.

iv) The High Court misread Rafiq Qureshi, which clarified that minimum is not maximum, and courts retain broad discretion.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

i) Section 21(c), NDPS Act, 1985 – Prescribes minimum 10 years’ imprisonment up to 20 years and fine for possession of commercial quantity.

ii) Section 32-B, NDPS Act, 1985 – Permits courts to consider listed aggravating factors “in addition to such factors as it may deem fit”.

I) JUDGEMENT

a) Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that Section 32-B factors (a–f) are not exhaustive. Courts may impose punishment above minimum based on other relevant considerations, including quantity of contraband. The High Court’s interpretation treating minimum as maximum was incorrect in law.

b) Obiter Dicta

The Court noted that judicial discretion must balance deterrence and proportionality, and sentencing should reflect legislative intent without artificially restricting trial court’s powers.

c) Guidelines

1. Minimum punishment under NDPS Act is not equivalent to maximum punishment.

2. Section 32-B factors are illustrative; courts may consider additional relevant factors.

3. Quantity of contraband is a legitimate factor for enhanced punishment.

4. Higher courts may interfere if trial courts impose higher punishment based on irrelevant considerations.

5. Courts must avoid interpreting penal statutes in a way that restricts judicial discretion unless expressly mandated.

J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The decision in Narayan Das v. State of Chhattisgarh brings clarity to NDPS sentencing jurisprudence. The Court rightly corrected the High Court’s misconception, reinforcing that sentencing under NDPS Act allows broad discretion guided by both Section 32-B and other relevant factors. However, the Supreme Court refrained from restoring the trial court’s 12-year sentence, leaving intact the High Court’s reduction to 10 years.

This signals judicial leniency in individual cases, while affirming a stricter doctrinal position for future interpretation. The judgment strengthens the deterrent framework of NDPS Act by clarifying that courts can enhance punishment beyond the minimum without being restricted to Section 32-B’s listed aggravating factors.

K) REFERENCES

1. Narayan Das v. State of Chhattisgarh, [2025] 8 S.C.R. 289 : 2025 INSC 872.

2. Rafiq Qureshi v. Narcotic Control Bureau Eastern Zonal Unit, (2019) 6 SCC 492.

3. Sakshi v. Union of India, (2004) 5 SCC 518.

4. Gurdev Singh v. State of Punjab, (2021) 6 SCC 558.

5. Raj Kumar Bajpaee v. Union of India, (2016) 95 ACC 896 (Allahabad HC).

6. Krishna Murari Pal v. State of U.P., 2015 SCC OnLine All 4909.

7. Ram Asre v. State of U.P., 2017 SCC OnLine All 2891.

8. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.