2021 INSC 0059
NON­REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1661 OF 2010
Sk. Sakkar @ Mannan   .....APPELLANT
        VERSUS
State of West Bengal .....RESPONDENT
JUDGEMENT
Surya Kant, J:
  The   appellant   Sk.   Sakkar   @   Mannan   assails   the   judgement   dated
09.12.2009   passed   by   the   High   Court   at   Calcutta   whereby   his   appeal
against   the   judgement   and   order   dated   26.05.2004   and   27.05.2004
passed   by   Special   Judge,   Birbhum   convicting   him   for   offences   under
Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
(“NDPS   Act”)   and   imposing   a   sentence   of   five   years   rigorous
imprisonment   (RI)   and   a   fine   of   Rs.   20,000/­   (in   default,   whereof   to
further undergo RI for one additional year), has been dismissed.
2. The   prosecution   case   in   brief   is   that   upon   receiving   secret
information,   D.S.P.   Headquarter,   Birbhum   conducted   a   raid   on
16.11.1997   and   intercepted   an   Ambassador   car   bearing   no.   BRW   312.
Page  |  1

Since the car was detained inside a forest area, 3/4 occupants of the car
managed to flee, while only 2 of the occupants, including the appellant,
were   caught   and   arrested.   11kgs   of   ganja   was   seized   following   the
statutory   procedure.   The   suspects   were   thereafter   interrogated,   and   a
formal   FIR   was   registered   at   Police   Station   Sadaipur.   Charge   sheet   was
submitted against five persons including the appellant.
3. The   appellant   and   his   co­accused,   except   one   Kalachand   Saha,
were charged under Section 20 of the NDPS Act. Since they pleaded not
guilty,   trial   was   conducted,   and   the   charges   against   them   were   proved.
The   Special   Judge,   Birbhum   convicted   and   sentenced   the   appellant   as
noted in paragraph 1 of this order. 
4. The   appellant   assailed   his   conviction   before   the   High   Court,
contending,   inter   alia,   that   the   prosecution   case   was   suffering   from
inherent   weakness,   and   that   the   testimonies   of   the   witnesses   were   not
credible.   The   plea   of   absence   of   independent   witnesses,   more   so   when
PW­2,   PW­3   and   PW­8   were   declared   hostile,   was   also   pressed   into
service.   It   was   also   highlighted   that   although   Kalachand   Saha   was
claimed to have been arrested along with the appellant, he was not even
charge­sheeted. 
5. The   High   Court   minutely   scrutinized   the   entire   evidence   and   has
extensively   discussed   the   depositions   made   by   PW­1,   PW­6,   PW­7   and
PW­9. It then firmly held that about 11 kgs of ganja was recovered from
Page  |  2

the appellant and Kalachand Saha. As regard to other three co­accused,
the High Court opined that since they were not arrested at the spot and
were roped in only with the aid of confessional statement of the arrested
person(s),   the   case   against   them   was   not   proved   beyond   reasonable
doubt.   The   High   Court   thus   acquitted   the   appellant’s   co­accused,   but
dismissed his appeal upholding the conviction and sentence awarded by
the Special Judge.
6. The still aggrieved appellant approached this Court through Special
Leave  to Appeal, in which leave was  granted on  27.08.2010. Thereafter,
having   regards   to   the   fact   that   the   appellant   had   already   undergone
actual sentence for a period of 2 years 4 months and 16 days, out of the
total sentence of RI for five years, this Court vide order dated 02.11.2012
suspended the sentence and released the appellant on bail.
7. We   have   heard   learned   counsel   for   the   parties   at   considerable
length   and   perused   the   record.   In   sum   and   substance,   it   is   urged   on
behalf   of   the   appellant   that   the   courts   below   have   not   correctly
appreciated   the   statements   of   the   witnesses   or   the   evidence   comprising
seizure   memo   etc.   It   is   also   argued   that   PW­2,   PW­3   and   PW­8   having
been   declared   hostile,   the   remaining   ocular   evidence   falls   short   of
proving the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
8. We   are,   however,   not   impressed   by   these   contentions.   What   has
been   sought   to   be   argued   is   essentially   either   a   question   of   fact   or   an
Page  |  3

abortive   attempt   for   re­appreciation   of   evidence   on   record.   Such
discourse   ordinarily   does   not   fall   within   the   scope   and   ambit   of   powers
vested   in   this   Court   under   Article   136   of   the   Constitution 1
.   The
appellant’s   claim   for   parity   with   his   acquitted   co­accused   is   also
misconceived,  for   unlike  the  appellant,  none  of  them  were  apprehended
at the spot; and as found by the High Court, no evidence was produced
to   connect   them   with   the   alleged   offence.     Contrarily,   not   only   was   the
appellant apprehended at the spot of the incident but also was found in
conscious   possession   of   the   ganja.   As   regard   to   his   co­accused
Kalachand   Saha,   there   is   unfortunately   no   material   on   record   to   shed
light   on   the   circumstances   in   which   charge   sheet   was   not   filed   against
him.   The   appellant,   however,   did   not   rely   upon   this   fact   either   in   his
defense   statement   under   Section   313,   CrPC   or   otherwise.   The
aforementioned   supplication   therefore   cannot   be   entertained   at   this
belated   stage.   There   is   no   other   substantial   question   of   law   raised   on
behalf   of   the   appellant.   We   are,   thus,   not   inclined   to   interfere   with   the
concurrent finding of fact returned by the courts below. 
9. Faced   with   this,   learned   Senior   Counsel   for   the   appellant   relies
upon   several   mitigating   circumstances   to   persuade   us   to   reduce   the
sentence   period.   He   passionately   urges   that:   (i)   the   appellant   has
1  
(i)  Surendra Puri v. State of Uttarakhand, (2016) 13 SCC 274; (ii) Mangu Khan
and  Others   v.   State   of   Rajasthan  (2005)   10  SCC  374;   (iii)  Pritam  Singh   v.   State,   AIR
1950 SC 169. 
Page  |  4

suffered   protracted   trial   for   more   than   23   years;   (ii)   he   alone   has   been
convicted   while   his   co­accused   are   acquitted;   (iii)   the   appellant   was   not
involved in any other case under the NDPS Act or other Penal Laws;   (iv)
the   appellant   has   already   undergone   actual   sentence   of   2   years   4
months and 16 days out of the total sentence of five years;   (v) and that
the   appellant   has   not   misused   the   concession   of   bail   granted   by   this
Court on 02.11.2012.
10. We   find   some   merit   in   the   submission   noticed   above.   It   may   be
noted   that   the   appellant   committed   the   crime   in   the   year   1997,   i.e.,
much   before   the   Narcotic   Drugs   and   Psychotropic   Substances
(Amendment)   Act,   2001   came   into   force.   The   punishment   for
contravention in relation to cannabis plant or any other provision of the
NDPS   Act,   in   his   case,   would   thus   be   regulated   by   the   unamended
Section   20   of   the   NDPS   Act,   as   it   stood   before   the   amendment   of   2001
and which reads as follows:
“20.   Punishment  for contravention in relation  to  cannabis  plant
and cannabis. Whoever, in contravention of any provision of this
Act   or   any   rule   or   order   made   or   condition   of   license   granted
thereunder­
(a) cultivates any cannabis plant; or
(b)   produces,   manufactures,   possesses,   sells,   purchases,
transports,   imports   inter­State,   exports   inter­State   or   uses
cannabis, shall be punishable,­
Page  |  5

(i)   where   such   contravention   relates   to   ganja   or   the
cultivation of cannabis plant, with rigorous imprisonment
for  a  term  which  may  extend  to  five  years   and   shall   also
be   liable   to   fine   which   may   extend   to   fifty   thousand
rupees;
(ii)   where   such   contravention   relates   to   cannabis   other   than
ganja, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be
less  than  ten years  but  which may extend  to  twenty  years  and
shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than one lakh
rupees and which may extend to two lakh rupees:
Provided   that   the   court   may,   for   reasons   to   be   recorded   in   the
judgment, impose a fine exceeding two lakh rupees.”
(emphasis supplied)
11. It is manifest from Section 20(i) of NDPS Act (as it stood in 1997),
that even though a maximum sentence of five years RI and a fine of upto
Rs.   50,000/­   was   prescribed   but   there   was   no   minimum   mandatory
sentence.   The   Legislature   had   in   its   wisdom   left   it   to   the   judicious
discretion   of   a   court   to   award   the   minimum   sentence   albeit   guided   by
the well known principles on the proportionality of sentence.  Taking into
consideration   the   peculiar   facts   and   circumstances   of   this   case,   it
appears   to   us   that   the   ends   of   justice   would   be   adequately   met   if   the
appellant’s sentence is reduced to the extent of the period he has already
undergone. We order accordingly. 
Page  |  6

12. For   the   reasons(s)   stated   above,   the   appeal   is   allowed   in   part;   the
impugned   judgments   of   the   Special   Judge   and   the   High   Court   are
modified   and   the   sentence   of   five   years   RI   awarded   to   the   appellant   is
reduced   to   the   period   of   sentence   already   undergone.   The   bail   bond   of
the appellant is discharged. However, the appellant shall be liable to pay
fine   of   Rs.  20,000/­  within  two   months,  if   already   not  deposited   and   in
default thereof he will be liable to undergo RI for six months.
…………………………….. J.
(N.V. RAMANA)
  ……………………………… J.
(SURYA KANT)
……..………………………. J.
(ANIRUDDHA BOSE)
NEW DELHI
DATED : 03.02.2021
Page  |  7