The Supreme Court has ruled that driving a vehicle without a license, while punishable under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, cannot be a standalone ground to award a sentence higher than the minimum prescribed under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).
A Division Bench comprising Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, in the case of Moh. Kamil Patel v. State of Chhattisgarh (Criminal Appeal No. 5036 of 2025), partly allowed the appeal of a convict, reducing his rigorous imprisonment from 12 years to the mandatory minimum of 10 years.
Background of the Case
The appeal challenged a judgment dated January 15, 2025, passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur. The High Court had affirmed the appellant’s conviction under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act for possession of a commercial quantity of contraband and Section 3/181 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
While the Trial Court had originally awarded a sentence of 20 years of rigorous imprisonment, the High Court had reduced it to 12 years. The sentence awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act remained undisturbed. The case involved the recovery of 206.230 kg of Ganja from a Bolero vehicle driven by the appellant.
Arguments of the Parties
Counsel for the appellant initially contended that although a commercial quantity of contraband was recovered from the vehicle, there was no material to establish “conscious possession.” It was argued that the appellant was merely driving the vehicle.
Subsequently, the appellant’s counsel focused on the quantum of the sentence. It was submitted that the appellant is a first offender with no previous criminal antecedents. Counsel argued that to award a sentence higher than the minimum prescribed (10 years), the presence of aggravating factors under Section 32B of the NDPS Act must be shown, which were “conspicuous by their absence in the instant case.”
Per contra, the Counsel for the State of Chhattisgarh relied on a recent decision of the Supreme Court in Narayan Das v. State of Chhattisgarh [2025 INSC 872]. The State contended that the Court is not limited to the factors specified in Section 32B of the NDPS Act when deciding on a higher sentence. Specifically, the State argued that the appellant was driving without a driving license, suggesting this could be a valid factor to award a punishment higher than the minimum.
Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court first addressed the contention regarding conscious possession. The Bench rejected the submission that the appellant was unaware of the contraband, noting that he was the driver and sole occupant of the vehicle.
The Court observed:
“Section 35 of the NDPS Act raises a rebuttable presumption about the culpable mental state of the accused. There appears no worthwhile evidence to demonstrate that the accused was not aware of the presence of contraband in the vehicle in his possession.”
On the issue of sentencing, the Court examined whether driving without a license constituted a valid ground for enhancing the sentence under the NDPS Act. The Bench distinguished between an offence under the Motor Vehicles Act and the aggravating circumstances envisaged under the NDPS Act.
The Court observed:
“In our view, driving a vehicle without a license may be a ground to punish the driver for an offence under the M.V. Act, as has been done in the present case, but that by itself would not be a ground to believe that the offender is involved in other illegal activities facilitating or facilitated by commission of the offence warranting punishment higher than the minimum prescribed in view of clause (f) of Section 32B of the NDPS Act.”
The Decision
Noting that the appellant is a “first offender with no previous criminal antecedents,” the Court held that the “ends of justice would be served” if the sentence was reduced to the minimum awardable term.
The Supreme Court passed the following order:
“Accordingly, we partly allow the appeal and reduce the sentence awarded by the High Court from 12 years to 10 years R.I. under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act. Rest of the order passed by the High Court is affirmed.”
The conviction under the Motor Vehicles Act and the NDPS Act stands affirmed, with the modification limited to the quantum of the sentence.
