Gurdev Singh V. State Of Punjab 6th April, 2021: The Issue That The Present Case Deals With Is Whether Or Not Poverty Of The Accused Can Be A Mitigating Factor While Awarding Punishment Under NDPS Act

CRUX:

Gurdev Singh v. State of Punjab (6th April, 2021)- The issue that the present case deals with is whether or not poverty of the accused can be a mitigating factor while awarding punishment under NDPS Act.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:

6th April, 2021.

JUDGES:

D.Y. Chandrachud, M.R. Shah.

PARTIES:

• Gurdev Singh (Appellant)
• State of Punjab (Respondent)

SUMMARY:

The following case deals with the issue of whether or not poverty of the accused can be a mitigating factor while awarding punishment under NDPS Act.

OVERVIEW

1. The appellant in the present case was found to be in possession of 1 kg heroin which was four times more than the minimum of commercial quantity.
2. The Special Court convicted the appellant under the provisions of Sec. 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act) and sentenced him to undergo 15 years of rigorous imprisonment. He was also ordered to pay a fine of 2 lakhs. If found to be in default of payment of said fine, he was to undergo an additional year of rigorous imprisonment.
3. Aggrieved by the decision of the Special Court, the appellant filed an appeal before the High Court. The High Court, however, dismissed the appeal.
4. The appellant, therefore, filed an appeal before the Supreme Court seeking relief.
5. The matter is now before the Supreme Court.

ISSUES

The following issue was analyzed by the court:

• Whether or not poverty of the accused can be a mitigating factor while awarding punishment under NDPS Act.

IMPORTANT PROVISIONS

• Sec. 21 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act: Punishment for contravention in relation to manufactured drugs and preparations.
• Sec. 32B of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act: Factors to be taken into account for imposing higher than the minimum punishment.

ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGMENT

1. The counsel for the appellant submitted before the court that punishment provided under the provisions of Sec. 21 of the NDPS Act was 10 years.
2. It was further submitted by the counsel of the appellant that as per Section 32B of the Act where a minimum term of imprisonment or amount of fine is prescribed for any offence committed under the Act, the Court may in addition to such factors, as it may deem fit, take into account the factors which are mentioned in Section 32B for imposing a punishment higher than the term of imprisonment or amount of fine.
3. The counsel for the appellant further argued that therefore, by imposing the punishment higher than the minimum term of imprisonment i.e. in the present case 15 years of rigorous imprisonment, the Court had to take into consideration the factors mentioned in Section 32B of the Act and has to assign the reasons while imposing the punishment higher than the minimum term of imprisonment.
4. The counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant was a first time offender and was a poor person. The counsel for the appellant submitted before the court that the main supplier of the narcotic substance had not been apprehended or arrested and the appellant-accused being a carrier, sentence higher than the minimum provided under the Act was not warranted.
5. The counsel for the appellant based his arguments on the decision given in the case of Rafiq Qureshi vs. Narcotic Control Bureau, Eastern Zonal Unit, ((2019) 6 SCC 492).
6. The counsel for the respondent submitted before the court that in the facts and circumstances of the case neither the Special Court nor the High Court have committed any error in imposing the punishment of 15 years of rigorous imprisonment, which is higher than the minimum sentence provided under the Act.
7. The counsel for the respondent argued before the court that the appellant was found with 1 kg of heroin which was much higher than the commercial quantity. The counsel submitted before the court that 250 gm is a minimum commercial quantity and in the present case the accused was found to be in possession of 1 kg of heroin which is four times more/higher than the minimum commercial quantity provided under the Act.
8. The court, on hearing arguments made by the appellant and the respondent, was of the view that while imposing a punishment higher than the minimum term of the imprisonment or an amount of fine, the Court may take into account the factors enumerated in Section 32B of the Act referred to hereinabove.
9. The court held that it was required to be noted that Section 32B of the Act itself further provides that the Court may, in addition to such factors as it may deem fit, take into account the factors for imposing a punishment higher than the minimum term of imprisonment or amount of fine as mentioned in Section 32B of the Act.
10. The court held that merely because the accused is a poor man and/or a carrier and/or is a sole bread earner cannot be such mitigating circumstances in favour of the accused while awarding the sentence/punishment in the case of NDPS Act.
11. Based on these observations, the court dismissed the appeal of the appellant.

CONCLUSION

The issue that the present case deals with is whether or not poverty of the accused can be a mitigating factor while awarding punishment under NDPS Act. The court, in the present case, held in the negative and held that merely because the accused is a poor man and/or a carrier and/or is a sole bread earner cannot be such mitigating circumstances in favour of the accused while awarding the sentence/punishment in the case of NDPS Act.

The court held that organized activities of the underworld and the clandestine smuggling of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances into this country and illegal trafficking in such drugs and substances shall lay to drug addiction among a sizeable section of the public, particularly the adolescents and students of both sexes and the menace has assumed serious and alarming proportions in the recent years.

Click here to download the original copy of the judgement