2017 (2) TMI 1326 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Adjusts Sentences in NDPS Act Cases

The Supreme Court upheld the appellant's convictions under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act but adjusted the sentences. In the Gujarat ... Voluntariness of confessional statement under the NDPS Act - admissibility of statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act - enhanced punishment for subsequent conviction under the NDPS Act - application of one-and-a-half times multiplier to minimum sentence under enhanced punishment provision - concurrent sentences - modification of fine and remittance to Narcotic Control BureauVoluntariness of confessional statement under the NDPS Act - admissibility of statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act - The confessional statement of the appellant recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act was voluntary and admissible and could be acted upon. - HELD THAT: - Both the Trial Court and the High Court found the statement to be voluntary and the Supreme Court upheld those findings. The courts recorded that the statement was read over to the appellant, he indicated understanding, and he signed it; there was no retraction. Contentions that the statement was extracted while in custody, that no formal arrest was shown, or that language differences rendered it involuntary were rejected on the facts. In the absence of any retraction or other material undermining voluntariness, the statement could be relied upon by the courts below.Finding of voluntariness and admissibility of the Section 67 statement upheld; conviction based in part on that statement sustained.Enhanced punishment for subsequent conviction under the NDPS Act - application of one-and-a-half times multiplier to minimum sentence under enhanced punishment provision - concurrent sentences - Sentence under the enhanced-punishment provision was to be fixed by reference to the minimum-punishment multiplier rather than by first imposing maximum and then multiplying; appellant's sentence modified to 16 years and ordered to run concurrently with the sentence in the Gujarat case. - HELD THAT: - Section 31 prescribes enhancement where there is a previous conviction. Sub-section (2) provides that where a person is liable to minimum imprisonment, the minimum punishment shall be one-and-a-half times that minimum. The High Court had taken the maximum term (20 years) and applied the one-and-a-half multiplier to arrive at 30 years. The Supreme Court held that on the facts this was not appropriate: having regard to sub-section (2) the correct approach is to apply the multiplier to the prescribed minimum where applicable. Applying the statutory scheme and the case facts (including the appellant's age and ailments), the Court reduced the sentence to 16 years as a just and reasonable term, and directed that it run concurrently with the sentence already undergone in the Gujarat case.Sentence modified to rigorous imprisonment for 16 years; sentences to run concurrently.Modification of fine and remittance to Narcotic Control Bureau - The fine imposed by the Bombay court reduced and the total fine remittance directed to the Narcotic Control Bureau at the Special Judge, Bombay. - HELD THAT: - The Trial Court in Gujarat had imposed a fine which was left undisturbed. The fine imposed by the Bombay court was reduced from the earlier quantum to a lesser amount. The Court directed that the appellant pay the aggregate fine (comprising the Gujarat fine and the reduced Bombay fine) to the Narcotic Control Bureau at the Special Judge, Bombay.Gujarat fine to remain; Bombay fine reduced; total fine to be paid to the Narcotic Control Bureau as directed.Final Conclusion: Convictions in both matters are sustained; the voluntariness and admissibility of the Section 67 statement are affirmed; the enhanced sentence imposed by the High Court is modified to 16 years' rigorous imprisonment to run concurrently with the Gujarat sentence; fines are adjusted and directed to be remitted to the Narcotic Control Bureau. Issues:1. Appeal against conviction and sentence under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.2. Validity of confessional statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act.3. Interpretation of Section 31 of the NDPS Act regarding enhanced punishment for subsequent offences.4. Sentencing discretion of the court considering previous conviction and age of the appellant.Issue 1: Appeal against Conviction and Sentence:The appellant was charged under Sections 8(c), 20(b), and 29 of the NDPS Act in two separate cases from Gujarat and Bombay. The Gujarat case resulted in a ten-year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1 lakh, upheld by the High Court. In the Bombay case, the appellant was initially sentenced to death, which was later reduced to 30 years imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 3 lakhs. The Supreme Court found no interference necessary in the conviction but adjusted the sentencing based on Section 31 of the NDPS Act.Issue 2: Validity of Confessional Statement:The appellant challenged the validity of his confessional statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, arguing it was not voluntary and was taken in Hindi instead of Urdu. The Supreme Court upheld the lower courts' findings that the statement was voluntary, as the appellant did not retract it, understood Hindi, and acknowledged knowing the language. The court found no fault in treating the statement as voluntary.Issue 3: Interpretation of Section 31 of the NDPS Act:Section 31 provides for enhanced punishment for subsequent offences, considering previous convictions. The High Court had awarded 30 years imprisonment to the appellant, applying the maximum punishment and multiplier. The Supreme Court, after due consideration, adjusted the sentence to 16 years, considering the minimum prescribed term of 10 years and the appellant's age and health conditions.Issue 4: Sentencing Discretion:The Supreme Court exercised its sentencing discretion, directing that the sentences in the Gujarat and Bombay cases run concurrently. The fine in the Gujarat case of Rs. 1 lakh remained, while in the Bombay case, it was reduced to Rs. 2 lakhs. The appellant was permitted to pay the total fine of Rs. 3 lakhs to the Narcotic Control Bureau, Special Judge, Bombay.In conclusion, the Supreme Court disposed of the appeals, maintaining the convictions but adjusting the sentences based on the provisions of the NDPS Act and considering the circumstances of the appellant.