https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263021 Sentencing for narcotics offences was treated as primarily driven by the gravity and social impact of the crime, with deterrence and public interest requiring a stern approach. The Court rejected leniency based on personal hardship and held that such circumstances cannot outweigh the seriousness of possession of a controlled substance concealed in luggage. A plea for parity with another case also failed because there is no right to negative equality and each sentencing decision depends on its own facts. The request for reduction of sentence was declined. en-us Mon, 03 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 25 Aug 2015 16:44:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263021 Sentencing for narcotics offences was treated as primarily driven by the gravity and social impact of the crime, with deterrence and public interest requiring a stern approach. The Court rejected leniency based on personal hardship and held that such circumstances cannot outweigh the seriousness of possession of a controlled substance concealed in luggage. A plea for parity with another case also failed because there is no right to negative equality and each sentencing decision depends on its own facts. The request for reduction of sentence was declined. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 03 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263021