Power Of Trial Court To Impose Above Minimum Sentence Not Restricted By S 32-B NDPS Act: SC

The Supreme Court recently held that trial courts are not restricted to the factors enumerated under Section 32-B of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS  Act) while imposing a sentence higher than the statutory minimum; The provision allows courts to consider other relevant circumstances and does not cap the sentence at the minimum prescribed.

A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan made the observation while hearing an appeal by Narayan Das, who was convicted under Section 21(c) of the NDPS Act and sentenced to 12 years rigorous imprisonment by a trial court.

The Chhattisgarh High Court had reduced the sentence to 10 years, the minimum under the provision, while upholding the conviction.

While the Top Court declined to interfere with the High Court’s order, it took exception to the reasoning adopted. It noted that the High Court proceeded under a “serious misconception of law” by treating the minimum sentence as the upper limit in the absence of aggravating factors listed under Section 32-B.

“There is something which we have noticed and must not be ignored,” the bench said; “That is not the correct understanding of Section 32-B of the NDPS Act.”

The Court clarified that Section 32-B does not restrict the trial court’s discretion. It provides that in addition to other relevant circumstances, the court may take into account certain listed factors, such as the use of violence, involvement of organized crime, or abuse of public office, while deciding on a sentence above the minimum.

Relying on Gurdev Singh v. State of Punjab (2021), the bench reiterated that the listed factors are not exhaustive, and courts may consider other aggravating circumstances, including the quantity and nature of the contraband and the accused’s criminal antecedents.

In this case, 236 vials were recovered from the accused and a co-accused, including Codectus and Elderqurex cough syrups and substances labelled as containing Codeine Phosphate, each vial measuring 100 ml.

Narayan Das was tried before the Special Judge (NDPS), Surguja, and sentenced to 12 years imprisonment along with a Rs. 1,00,000 fine.

The High Court, relying on Rafiq Qureshi v. NCB (2019), held that the trial court must base a sentence above the minimum only on the specific aggravating factors mentioned in Section 32-B. The Supreme Court disagreed with this reading, noting that Rafiq Qureshi had been misunderstood.

The Court clarified that Rafiq Qureshi in fact upheld the discretion of courts to impose higher sentences based on relevant factors not listed under Section 32-B, including the quantity of the narcotic substance.

Citing Sakshi v. Union of India (2004), the Court also reaffirmed the principle that legislative intent must be derived from the plain language of the statute.

Since Section 32-B uses permissive language "may take into account" courts are not bound to consider only those factors listed under the provision, it was added.

While ultimately upholding the High Court’s reduced sentence in this case, the bench made it clear that the reasoning adopted in reducing the sentence should not be treated as correct legal interpretation.

Case Title: Narayan Das v. State of Chhattisgarh

Judgment Date: July 17, 2025

Bench: Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan