Supreme Court Bench Led by Justices J. B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan Rule That Trial Courts Have Wider Discretion in NDPS Sentencing: Quantity of Drugs Can Justify Higher Punishment

Recently the Supreme Court of India made an important contribution to the law on sentencing and Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985. The case,

✖

Narayan Das v. State of Chhattisgarh, ( Special leave Petition (Crl.) No. [Diary No. 30825/2025]) was interpreted to determine the meaning of Section 32B of the NDPS Act which provides grounds to award punishment more than the stipulated minimum. This ruling, which was issued on July 17, 2025, offers important clues on sentencing discretion by courts in issues to do with drug-related crimes.

Facts of the Case- in very brief

The petitioner Narayan Das faced prosecution under the provisions of Section 21 (c) of the NDPS Act. According to the prosecution, on the 20 th of September 2018, the investigating officer got information that two suspected, Ambika Vishwakarma and Narayan Das had psychotropic substances in a bag in a main road. A third search resulted in the confiscation of a total of 143 vials of R.C. Kuff cough syrup with Codeine Phosphate, 70 vials of Codectus cough syrup with Codeine Phosphate and 23 vials of Elderqurex cough syrup with Codeine Phosphate. Narayan Das and his co-accused yielded 236 vials in number.

The trial court found Narayan Das guilty and awarded him 12 years of hard prison and additional fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-. He approached the High Court which confirmed the conviction but also settled the sentence at 10 years, the minimum punishment in the NDPS Act. The reasoning used by the High court in overturning the sentence was that it understood that Section 32B of the NDPS Act meant that a sentence larger than the minimal should have special reason. After that, Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court was taken.

The High Courts Misconception of Law

The main point that Supreme Court found out was that the High court had not understood Section 32B of the NDPS Act correctly. In the opinion of the High Court, when a trial court sought to sentence a convict to a period that was more than the minimum stipulated by the NDPS Act, it ought to give certain reasons and that such reasons must have been in accordance to the ones listed in clauses (a) to ( f ) of Section 32B. The factors include the utilization of violence, occupancy of positions in a government, and taking benefit of it, influencing or using minors in the crime, and committing the crime within the vicinity of education or social facilities, affiliation with organized criminal organizations, and use of illegal activities by the offense, Section 32B provides the factors.

This misinterpretation by the High Court was reported to be wrong as pointed out by the Supreme Court.

The Supreme court Interpretation of Section 32B

Section 32B deals with the real meaning of the section and the Supreme Court took reference of its own judgment in

Rafiq Qureshi v. Narcotic Control Bureau Eastern Zonal Unit (2019) 6 SCC 492. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the 2001 amendment (inserted Section 32B) was to make the sentencing structure rational with proper punishment being imposed on the dealers in the drugs in large quantities and less on those in minor dealings in order to act as a deterrence.

The important bit of Section 32B is as follows that the court may in addition to such of the factors as it may consider fit take into consideration the following factors in imposing a punishment bigger than the minimum term of imprisonment or amount of fine. The Supreme Court stated that the expression of the phrase in addition to such factors as it may deem fit is a prime consideration. It implies that the mentioned factors which are contained in clauses (a) to (f) do not limit the discretion of the court to take into consideration any other factors considered to be relevant.

The amount of the contraband that has been captured is also an important factor that qualifies to be viewed as relevant in enhancing the requirement of higher than minimum sentence by a court. Although as stated in the clauses ( a ) to ( f ) of Section 32B there is no direct procedure that considers the quantity of the substance, however, the Court still restated that it is not something that cannot be considered by a court. That is why a court can award a larger punishment depending on the amount of the substance although none of the specific factors mentioned in Section 32B(a) to (f) exist.

The Supreme Court as well cited

Sakshi v. Union of India (2004) 5 SCC 518 in which they have stressed that legislative intent must be gleaned out of express words of the statute and words are not to be added or substituted. This reinforced the meaning that Section 32B does not take away discretion by the court in sentencing but on the contrary widens the discretion.

In addition, the Supreme Court referred to

Gurdev Singh v. According to the State of Punjab (2021) 6 SCC 558, they stated that the guiding factors can be the ones provided in Section 32B and other entities. It was confirmed that sentence minimum by the NDPS Act should not be used as the maximum sentence. The quantity of the substance is an acceptable factor that the court has extensive discretion in determining the sentence when the offense deals with the commercial quantity, which may have a 10 year to 20 year sentence.

Maintenance of Reduced Sentence given by High Court

Although explaining the wrong interpretation of Section 32B by the High Court, the Supreme Court, in this very particular instance, did not overrule the High Court order that cut down the sentence of the appellant Narayan Das by 2 years to 10 years. The petition was finally dismissed meaning that even though the statutory meaning of Section 32B was so far corrected, the result of the judgment of the High Court relating to the exact sentence to be imposed of Narayan Das was not interfered with in this case.

This is an important clarification made by the Supreme Court with regard to all courts handling a case under NDPS Act and especially with regard to Section 32B of the Act in as much as it actually stipulates the factors that should be applied to the minimum penalty to arrive at higher penalty but does not restrict the wider provision of the court, to consider other factors that the court may see as relevant, such as amount of the contraband, when deciding on an appropriate punishment.