Driving Without a License Cannot Be a Ground to Award Higher Than Minimum Sentence Under NDPS Act: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of India has clarified an important aspect of sentencing under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, holding that driving a vehicle without a valid driving license cannot by itself be treated as an aggravating factor to impose a sentence higher than the statutory minimum prescribed under the NDPS Act.

The ruling is significant for both lawyers and members of the public dealing with NDPS prosecutions, as it draws a clear line between offences under the Motor Vehicles Act and aggravating circumstances required to justify enhanced punishment under the NDPS Act.

The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan in Moh Kamil Patel v State of Chhattisgarh, partly allowing an appeal filed by the accused and reducing his sentence under the NDPS Act from 12 years to the statutory minimum of 10 years rigorous imprisonment.

The appeal arose from a judgment dated January 15, 2025 passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur. The High Court had upheld the conviction of the appellant under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act, which deals with possession of commercial quantity of cannabis, and under Section 3 read with Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act for driving without a license.

The prosecution case was that a commercial quantity of ganja weighing 206.230 kilograms was recovered from a Bolero vehicle driven by the appellant. The appellant was the sole occupant and driver of the vehicle at the time of recovery.

The trial court had initially sentenced the appellant to 20 years rigorous imprisonment under the NDPS Act. The High Court reduced this sentence to 12 years, while maintaining the conviction and sentence under the Motor Vehicles Act. The appellant did not challenge the punishment imposed under the Motor Vehicles Act and confined his challenge to the conviction and sentence under the NDPS Act.

Before the Supreme Court, counsel for the appellant argued that there was no material to establish that the appellant was in conscious possession of the contraband allegedly recovered from the vehicle. It was contended that mere presence in the vehicle was insufficient to sustain a conviction for possession of a commercial quantity under the NDPS Act.

The Supreme Court rejected this argument. The bench noted that the appellant was the driver and sole occupant of the vehicle from which a large quantity of ganja was recovered. In such circumstances, the presumption under Section 35 of the NDPS Act regarding culpable mental state was clearly attracted.

The Court observed that Section 35 raises a rebuttable presumption that the accused had knowledge of the contraband found in his possession. In the present case, there was no credible evidence produced by the defence to rebut this presumption. Accordingly, the Supreme Court held that there was no error in the conviction recorded by the trial court and affirmed by the High Court.

The central issue before the Supreme Court was whether the sentence under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act could be reduced to the minimum prescribed punishment of 10 years rigorous imprisonment.

Counsel for the appellant submitted that to impose a sentence higher than the minimum prescribed under the NDPS Act, the prosecution must establish the existence of aggravating factors as contemplated under Section 32B of the Act. It was argued that none of the statutory aggravating circumstances were present in the case.

It was further pointed out that the appellant was a first time offender with no prior criminal antecedents. In the absence of any evidence showing organised crime, use of violence, involvement of minors, or repeat offences, there was no justification to award a punishment higher than the minimum of 10 years.

On the other hand, the State relied on a recent Supreme Court decision in Narayan Das v State of Chhattisgarh to argue that factors other than those expressly mentioned in Section 32B could also be taken into account while deciding the quantum of sentence. The State contended that the fact that the appellant was driving the vehicle without a valid driving license should be treated as an aggravating circumstance warranting a higher sentence.

The Supreme Court categorically rejected the State’s argument. The bench clarified that driving without a license is an offence punishable under the Motor Vehicles Act and can certainly attract penal consequences under that law. However, it cannot automatically be treated as an aggravating factor under the NDPS Act for the purpose of enhancing the sentence beyond the statutory minimum.

The Court held that driving without a license does not, by itself, indicate that the offender was involved in other illegal activities facilitating or facilitated by the commission of the NDPS offence, as required under clause (f) of Section 32B of the NDPS Act.

The bench observed that aggravating circumstances under Section 32B must have a clear and rational nexus with the nature of the narcotics offence. Treating a standalone traffic violation as a basis for enhanced punishment under the NDPS Act would be inconsistent with the statutory scheme and sentencing principles.

Taking into account that the appellant was a first offender with no previous criminal history, the Supreme Court held that the ends of justice would be served by reducing the sentence to the minimum prescribed under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act, which is 10 years rigorous imprisonment.

While reducing the sentence, the Court affirmed the conviction under the NDPS Act as well as the punishment imposed under the Motor Vehicles Act. Except for the reduction in sentence, the rest of the High Court’s judgment was left undisturbed.

Case Title: Moh Kamil Patel v State of Chhattisgarh

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan

Date of Judgment: November 25, 2025