Man Accused Of Dealing With Drugs Cannot Be Excused On The Grounds Of Being Poor

OVERVIEW

• The case came up before the Supreme Court as an appeal was filed by the accused after being sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 15 years under section 21 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. (NDPS Act)
• In order to lessen the punishment imposed on him it was argued by the accused that he is a poor man and the sole breadwinner of the family.
• The 2 judge bench of the apex court comprising of Justice M.R Shah and Justice D.Y Chandrachud heard the appeal and delivered a judgement.

BACKGROUND DETAILS

• In this case the accused was found to own 1 kg of heroin. Further, it was found he had this huge quantity of drugs to sell the narcotic substance.
• It was contended by the accused that he was a 1st-time convict and was only a carrier of the drugs. He also mentioned that he is a poor man and was the sole breadwinner of his family.
• The trial court in its judgement awarded the accused with rigorous imprisonment for 15 years and a fine of ₹2 lakhs. The following judgement was upheld even by the Punjab & Haryana High Court.

FURTHER DETAILS

• Under section 32B of NDPS Act the minimum term for imprisonment is 10 years or more.
• Initially the Supreme Court distanced itself from the matter and clarified that it won’t interfere with the decision but shall only consider the case with regards to the sentencing aspect of the case.
• The apex court in its order showed concerns and said that offences committed under the NDPS Act have a lethal consequence in society and such offences should be seen in the light of crimes against society.

COURT’S VERDICT

• The supreme court held that while sentencing imprisonment higher than the minimum amount prescribed for punishment the court may take such factors into account as it thinks appropriate with regards to the case and can go beyond the factors mentioned under section 32B.
• Also if the main factor taken into consideration by the trial court is the quantity of drugs, then it cannot be asserted that an error has been committed by the court.
• Lastly, the court clarified that whether the accused is a poor man/ just a carrier/ sole breadwinner such circumstances cannot be held as an excuse to lessen the punishment in cases of offences committed under the NDPS Act.

What do you think about the verdict pronounced by the court? Comment below!