2020 INSC 0599
NON­REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.828  OF 2020
(Arising from S.L.P.(Criminal) No.6232 of 2020)
 @ Diary No. 6991/2020
Issak Nabab Shah …Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra …Respondent
J U D G M E N T
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. Having   heard   the   learned   Advocate   appearing   on   behalf   of
the   appellant   and   the   learned   Advocate   appearing   on   behalf   of
the State, the delay caused in preferring the appeal is condoned.
1a. Leave granted.
2. Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned
judgment and order dated 16.03.2016 passed by the High Court
of   Judicature   at   Bombay,   Bench   at   Aurangabad   in   Criminal
1

Appeal No. 357 of 2015, by which the High Court has dismissed
the said appeal preferred by the appellant – original accused and
has   confirmed   the   judgment   and   order   of   conviction   passed   by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kopargaon, convicting the
appellant   –   original   accused   for   the   offences   punishable   under
Section   8(c)   and   20(b)   of   the   Narcotic   Drugs   and   Psychotropic
Substances   Act,   1985   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   the   ‘NDPS   Act’)
and   sentencing   him   to   undergo   10   years   rigorous   imprisonment
and   a   fine   of   Rs.1,00,000/­   (Rupees   one   lakh),   the   original
accused no.1 has preferred the present appeal.
2.1 At the outset, it is required to be noted that by order dated
13.10.2020   notice   limited   to   the   quantum   of   sentence   has   been
issued by this Court.
3. Learned   Advocate   appearing   on   behalf   of   the   appellant   has
submitted   that   the   appellant   was   found   to   be   in   possession   of
6.300 kilogram of Ganja – Narcotic Substance, which is above the
small   quantity   and   below   commercial   quantity.     It   is   submitted
that  under   the NDPS  Act, 20 kilogram  of  Ganja  is considered to
be   commercial   quantity   and   the   punishment   for   commercial
quantity   is   10   years   rigorous   imprisonment   and   above.     It   is
submitted   that   however   for   the   quantity   between   small   quantity
2

and   commercial   quantity,   the   punishment   is   up   to   10   years
rigorous imprisonment.  3.1 It   is   submitted   that   the   appellant
has   already   undergone   six   years   rigorous   imprisonment   out   of
ten   years   rigorous   imprisonment   imposed   by   the   learned   trial
court and confirmed by the High Court.  Therefore, it is prayed to
modify   the   sentence   imposed   by   the   learned   trial   Court,
confirmed by the High Court, to the sentence already undergone,
considering   the   fact   that   at   the   relevant   time   the   appellant   was
aged   24­25   years   of   age   and   he   has   learned   a   lesson   and   that
there was no antecedents and is married and having children and
the family depend upon him.
4. Learned   Advocate   appearing   on   behalf   of   the   respondent­
State has submitted that the appellant­accused was heard by the
learned   trial   Court   on   sentence   and   after   considering   the
aggravating factors and that the appellant has been convicted for
the offence under the NDPS Act, maximum punishment has been
imposed by the learned trial Court which has been confirmed by
the   High  Court.     Therefore,  it   is   prayed  not   to   interfere   with   the
punishment imposed by the learned trial Court, confirmed by the
High Court.
3

5. Having   heard   the   learned   Advocates   appearing   for   the
respective parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case,
more   particularly   when   the   quantity/Ganja   recovered   from   the
appellant   was   6.300   kilogram,   which   is   between   small   quantity
and   commercial   quantity   and   considering   the   fact   that   the
maximum   punishment   for   such   offence   is   10   years   rigorous
imprisonment, out of which the appellant has already undergone
six  years rigorous  imprisonment,  we allow the  present  appeal in
part and modify the impugned judgment and order passed by the
learned trial Court, confirmed by the High Court, to the extent of
imposing   the   sentence   of   six   years   rigorous   imprisonment   in
place   of   ten   years   rigorous   imprisonment   as   imposed   by   the
learned trial Court and confirmed by the High Court. Rest of the
judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court, confirmed
by the High Court, is hereby confirmed.
6. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent only.
…………………………………J.
[ASHOK BHUSHAN]
…………………………………J.
[R. SUBHASH REDDY]
4

NEW DELHI; …………………………………J.
DECEMBER 03, 2020. [M.R. SHAH]    
5