Commercial quantity under NDPS Act cannot be diluted by purity analysis, and statutory minimum sentence must be applied

The quantity classification of seized charas had to be determined by the governing NDPS notification and the nature of the recovered substance, not by the purity-content approach used for mixed narcotics. The seizure crossed the commercial threshold, so conviction under the commercial-quantity provision was restored. Once that offence was established, the statutory minimum sentence of ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a minimum fine could not be reduced on equitable grounds or because of custody already undergone. The High Court's alteration of conviction and sentence was therefore set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the seized charas was to be treated as commercial quantity or intermediate quantity for the purpose of conviction under the NDPS Act; (ii) Whether the sentence could be reduced below the statutory minimum prescribed for the proved offence.

Issue (i): Whether the seized charas was to be treated as commercial quantity or intermediate quantity for the purpose of conviction under the NDPS Act.

Analysis: The seized substance was charas, which falls within the statutory definition of cannabis. The relevant notification specified 1 kg as the commercial quantity for cannabis and 50 gms as the commercial quantity for tetrahydrocannabinol. The Court held that the High Court erred in applying the purity-content approach from cases dealing with mixed narcotic substances and in treating the seizure as intermediate quantity. On the facts, even on the High Court's own reasoning, the seized item crossed the commercial threshold.

Conclusion: The seizure was correctly held to be commercial quantity, and the conviction under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) was restored in favour of the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the sentence could be reduced below the statutory minimum prescribed for the proved offence.

Analysis: The offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) carried a mandatory minimum sentence of ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a minimum fine of one lakh rupees. The Court reiterated that where Parliament has prescribed a minimum sentence, the courts cannot impose a lesser punishment on equitable grounds or because the accused has already undergone substantial custody.

Conclusion: Reduction of sentence below the statutory minimum was impermissible.

Final Conclusion: The High Court's alteration of conviction and sentence was set aside, and the trial court's finding of guilt under the commercial quantity provision was restored with the statutory minimum sentence.

Ratio Decidendi: For offences under the NDPS Act, the applicable quantity classification must be determined from the nature of the recovered substance and the governing notification, and a court cannot impose a sentence below the statutory minimum once guilt under the relevant commercial-quantity provision is established.

---