Supreme Court clarifies Section 32-B does not confine courts to enumerated aggravating factors when awarding above‑minimum NDPS sentences

A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan heard a special leave petition by Narayan Das challenging his conviction and sentence under Section 21(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The appeal arose from a prosecution that accused the petitioner of possession of 236 vials of cough syrups containing Codeine Phosphate; the trial court convicted and sentenced him to 12 years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine, the High Court affirmed the conviction but reduced sentence to the statutory minimum of 10 years.

The Court rejected the petition and affirmed the High Court’s order insofar as conviction and the modified sentence stood, but recorded a significant clarification on statutory interpretation. The Court observed that the High Court “seems to be labouring under a serious misconception of law so far as the interpretation of Section 32‑B of the NDPS Act is concerned.” It held that Section 32‑B did not restrict sentencing discretion to the factors enumerated in clauses (a) to (f); rather, the provision preserved the court’s power to take “such factors as it may deem fit” into account when imposing punishment higher than the minimum. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “The statutory scheme indicates that the decision to impose a punishment higher than the minimum is not confined or limited to the factors enumerated in clauses (a) to (f). The Court's discretion to consider such factors as it may deem fit is not taken away or tinkered.” The bench further noted that the quantity of the contraband and other relevant circumstances could be legitimate grounds for a sentence above the minimum, and that the ratio in Rafiq Qureshi was to be understood in that light.

Background The prosecution case, recorded on 20 September 2018, stated that the investigating officer received information that the petitioner and a co‑accused were in possession of psychotropic substances. A search allegedly yielded 143 vials of R.C. Kuff, 70 vials of Codectus and 23 vials of Elderqurex cough syrups — 236 vials in all — labelled as containing Codeine Phosphate. The trial court convicted and sentenced Narayan Das to 12 years’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,00,000; the petitioner appealed to the Chhattisgarh High Court which dismissed the appeal but reduced the jail term to 10 years, the minimum under Section 21(c). The petitioner approached this Court by way of special leave petition, contending procedural infirmities in seizure and challenging the correctness of the sentence.

While the Supreme Court found no ground to disturb the High Court’s conclusion on conviction, it took up the question of whether the High Court erred in treating Section 32‑B as mandating that courts must expressly record one of the enumerated factors before awarding punishment above the minimum. The Court traced the legislative purpose behind Section 32‑B to the Statement of Objects and Reasons to Act 9 of 2001 and relied on precedent including Rafiq Qureshi and Gurdev Singh to explain that Section 32‑B was introduced to rationalise sentencing and to list, but not confine, aggravating factors. The Court emphasised the textual phrase “in addition to such factors as it may deem fit”, holding that courts retained a wide discretion to consider other relevant circumstances such as the magnitude of quantity. The petition was dismissed; no interim directions were necessary and the modified sentence as recorded by the High Court stood. The Court noted that the High Court’s reduction of sentence was nonetheless left undisturbed.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 872 (Special Leave Petition (Crl.) — Diary No. 30825/2025) Case Title: Narayan Das v. State of Chhattisgarh Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Ashish Pandey, Advocate (Legal Aid) For the Respondent(s): State Counsel (not indicated in judgment)