The Supreme Court of India has modified the sentence of a man convicted under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), reducing his ten-year rigorous imprisonment to the period already undergone (approximately seven years). While the Court upheld the conviction, it granted the appellant the “benefit of doubt” regarding the exact weight of the contraband, which was only 80 grams over the commercial quantity.
The order was passed by a bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra in an appeal (arising from SLP(Crl.) No. 13782 of 2025) filed by the appellant, Dharam Singh, against a judgment of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh.
The appeal challenged the High Court’s judgment dated 16.08.2023, which had upheld the Trial Court’s verdict dated 08.11.2019. The Trial Court had convicted the appellant under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act and sentenced him to ten years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,00,000.
Background of the Case
According to the prosecution, the case stemmed from a “chance encounter” with the police. It was alleged that the appellant, who was carrying a bag, “panicked and started running” upon seeing the police. Upon being chased, the appellant allegedly “thrown the bag from which material appearing to be charas was recovered.” A subsequent body search of the appellant recovered no contraband. The quantity of charas said to have been recovered was 1 kg 80 gms, which is slightly above the commercial quantity of 1 kg.
Arguments of the Parties
Learned counsel for the appellant raised several contentions. It was argued that the appellant was not given the mandatory option under Section 50 of the NDPS Act to be searched before a Magistrate, and non-compliance with this provision should have resulted in acquittal.
The appellant’s counsel further contended that the 80 gms in excess of the commercial quantity was a “meagre quantity” and that the contraband was wrapped in plastic, which “could also account for some weight.”
A key argument was made regarding the electronic scale used to weigh the recovered material. Counsel submitted that the scale was “not properly set” and that it was not “first ensured that when the empty weight, should display zero and then only the material has to be put to record the correct weight, which is not indicated in the documents of the present case.” It was argued that this created doubt regarding the quantity, and the benefit should be granted to the appellant.
Learned counsel for the respondent (State of Himachal Pradesh) submitted that “the authorities were very particular in following the due procedure of law” and that it was a “chance recovery.” It was noted that the FSL report confirmed the material as charas. Regarding the weighing machine, the State’s counsel contended that while “there is no specific averment that the scale was first calibrated to show zero,” it “would not be of much relevance for the weighing was done in the presence of the appellant to which he had not objected.”
Court’s Analysis and Decision
After hearing both parties, the Supreme Court held that “the conviction of the appellant needs no interference.”
However, the Court found merit in the appellant’s argument concerning the weighing scale. The judgment states, “keeping in mind the fact that being an electronic scale, it has rightly been pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant that there is lack of evidence to prove that the scale was recalibrated to indicate zero before the weighing was done.”
The bench observed that “This raises some sort of a doubt with regard to the actual weight.”
The Court deemed this doubt significant in the specific facts of the case, “for the reason that the commercial quantity is 1 kg and the weight in excess is alleged to be only 80 gms.”
Concluding its analysis, the Court held, “Thus, a holistic and overall assessment of the facts and circumstances of the present case, we find that a doubt having been created with regard to the actual weight of the charas/contraband, the appellant deserves to be given such benefit of doubt.”
In its final order, the Supreme Court stated, “Accordingly, without disturbing the conviction recorded against the appellant, we modify the sentence to that of period already undergone by the appellant. The appellant be released from custody, if not required in any other case.”
The appeal was “partly allowed to the extent indicated above.”
