No leniency to be shown to an accused found guilty under NDPS Act, says Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Tuesday remarked that no leniency should be shown to an accused who is found to be guilty for the offence under the NDPS Act. 

A bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna further observed,

"Those persons who are dealing in narcotic drugs are instruments in causing death or in inflicting death blow to a number of innocent young victims who are vulnerable. Such accused causes deleterious effects and deadly impact on the society. They are hazard to the society."

An appeals was filed by the accused Mohd Zahid who was convicted in two separate cases, in one case for recovery of 4kg of heroin and sentenced to undergo 12 years rigourous imprisonment by the Amritsar Court and in another case for a recovery of 750 grams of heroin and considering Section 31 (ii) of the NDPS Act, he was sentenced to undergo 15 years rigorous imprisonment by a New Delhi Court.

The Delhi High Court had dismissed the appeal filed by Zahid wherein he had argued that since he had already undergone 12 years sentence, he cannot be punished twice and a lenient view may be taken so that the sentences imposed in both the cases  shall be held to run concurrently. Since this appeal was disallowed, Zahid approached the Supreme Court.

The short question which was posed for the consideration of the top Court was, whether, the sentences imposed against the accused by two different courts in two different trials but against the same accused should run concurrently or consecutively.

It was noted by the Court that judgments were delivered in both the cases one after another and in the subsequent judgment and   order of conviction and sentence by the Delhi court there was no specific order passed by the learned Trial Court saying that the sentences would run concurrently. 

While referring to Section 427 of CrPC, the bench noted,

"....when a person who is already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment or imprisonment for life, such imprisonment or imprisonment for life shall commence at the expiration of the   imprisonment to which he has been previously sentenced. Meaning thereby the sentence in both the conviction shall run consecutively."

"However, there is an exception to that, namely unless the Court directs that the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with   such previous sentence. There is one another exception. As per 11 Sub­section (2) of Section 427 of Cr.PC  when a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment for life is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment for a term or imprisonment for life, the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence.", added the bench.

Relying on a plethora of judgments and the law laid down by the Supreme Court it was noted that, since the appellant was convicted with respect to two different transactions, there are different crime numbers and the cases have been decided by the different   judgments, he was not entitled to any benefit of concurrent sentence under Section 427 of Cr.PC.

Moreover, while taking note of the offences that Zahid was convicted for, the Court observed,

"Such organized activities of clandestine smuggling of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances into this country and illegal trafficking in such drugs and substances have a deadly impact on the society as a whole. Therefore, while awarding the sentence or punishment in case of NDPS Act, the interest of the society as a whole is required to be taken into consideration. Therefore, even while applying discretion under Section 427 of Cr.PC, the discretion shall not be in favour of the accused who is found to be indulging in illegal trafficking in the narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances."

The Court thus emphasized that while applying discretion under Section 427, the discretion is to be exercised judiciously and depending upon the offence/offences committed.  

Therefore, considering the offences under the NDPS Act which are very serious in nature and against the society at large, no discretion was exercised in favour of Zahid and the appeal stood dismissed.

Cause Title: Mohd Zahid v. State through NCB