/2022 INSC 0715/
NON­REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
           CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S).1218  OF 2022
(Arising out of SLP(Criminal) No(s). 4935 of 2022)
BUDHIYARIN BAI ….APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF CHATTISGARH ….RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
Rastogi, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment and order
dated 26 th
 February, 2018 upholding conviction of the appellant for
the   offence   under   Section   20(b)(ii)(C)   of   the   Narcotic   Drugs   and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter being referred to as
the “NDPS Act”) and sentenced to 15 years’ rigorous imprisonment
and   a   fine   of   Rs.One   Lakh,   in   default   to   pay   fine,   a   sentence   of
1

rigorous   imprisonment   for   a   period   of   3   years   to   be   undergone
separately.
3. The   notice   was   issued   by   this   Court   by   an   Order   dated   13 th
May, 2022 limited to the quantum of sentence.
4. The   facts   of   the   case   relevant   for   the   purpose   are   that   the
appellant is a poor illiterate lady and a senior citizen at the time of
the   alleged   incident,   i.e.,   15 th
  January,   2011,   who,   along   with   her
two children, Pila Ram and Rajkumar alias Raju was charged under
Section   20(b)(ii)(C)   of   the   NDPS   Act   for   having   joint   possession   of
the   commercial   quantity   of   illegal   ‘Ganja’(Cannabis)   of   05   quintal
and 21.5 kilogram, which was, as alleged, in their joint knowledge.
Other   co­accused   Rajendra   Tiwari   and   Idris   Khan   were   charged
under   Section   27­A   of   the   NDPS   Act   that   they   delivered   the   illegal
cannabis   in   the   house   which   was   in   possession   of   accused
appellant   at   Village   Chikhali,   Police   Station   Dondi   and   thereby
facilitated   trafficking   of   cannabis   carried   out   by   appellant   and   her
two children(co­accused Pila Ram and Rajkumar alias Raju).
2

5. The   case   of   the   prosecution   in   brief   is   that   on   15 th
  January
2011,   the   then   station­in­charge   of   Police   Station   Dondi,   PW­7
Vinay Singh Baghel, on being informed via telephone by station­in­
charge Rajhara about accused appellant of Village Chikhali keeping
‘ganja’(Cannabis)   in   her   house   for   selling;   gave   this   information   to
C.S.P. Rajhara through telephone and prepared a written report in
this   regard   and   sent   it   via   Constable   No.   1480.     Thereafter,   PW­7
Vinay   Singh   Baghel   along   with   his   beat   staff,   reached   Village
Chikhali   for   action   and   summoned   witnesses   Komal   Singh   and
Chandrika Bai.  Informing accused appellant about the information
and   after   giving   notice   and   consent   for   search   proceedings,
prepared   the   consent   Panchnama.     Station­in­Charge   Vinay   Singh
Bhaghel   prepared   his   search   Panchnama   by   allowing   the   accused
appellant to search him, police staff and witnesses first.  
6. Thereafter, upon conducting lawful search of the house of the
accused   appellant   in   front   of   the   witnesses,   ‘ganja’(cannabis)   was
found   in   twenty   twine   sacks,   search   and   seizure   of   Panchnama   of
which   was   prepared.     After   physical   verification   of   scales   from
3

weigher Devlal Sinha, and upon weighing the recovered ganja, total
weight   of   ganja   packed   in   20(twenty)   sacks   was   found   to   be   05
quintals, 21.5 kilogram.   From each of the said sacks, two samples
of  50­50 gms. each were taken and the original ganja  was  labelled
‘A’ to ‘T’ and sample packets as “A­1’, ‘A­2’ till ‘T­1’, ‘T­2’.   After the
ganja(cannabis)   and   sample   packets   were   sealed   and   seized,   the
appellant was given a notice under Section 91 CrPC.   She failed to
produce   any   document   in   relation   to   being   in   possession   of   said
cannabis.     Accused   appellant   on   being   questioned   stated   to   be
carrying   on   the   trade   of   cannabis   together   with   her   two   sons,   Pila
Ram and Raj Kumar alias Raju as well as with Rajendra Tiwari and
Idris Khan.
7. The   FIR   came   to   be   registered   and   after   completion   of
investigation,   charge­sheet   under   Sections   20(b)   and   27­A   of   the
NDPS   Act   and   Section   299   IPC   was   filed   implicating   5   accused
persons including the present appellant.
8. The trial Court framed the charge under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of
the NDPS Act against the present appellant and two other persons,
4

namely, Pila Ram and Raj Kumar alias Raju and two other persons,
namely,   Rajendra   Tiwari   and   Idris   Khan   were   charged   for   the
offence punishable under Section 27­A of the NDPS Act.
9. So   as   to   hold   the   accused   persons   guilty,   the   prosecution
examined   09   witnesses   in   all   and   statements   of   accused   persons
were   recorded   under   Section   313   CrPC   in   which   they   denied   the
circumstances   appearing   against   them   in   the   prosecution   case,
pleaded innocence and false implication.
10. The   trial   Court,   after   hearing   the   learned   counsel   for   the
parties, held the appellant guilty for the offence under Section 20(b)
(ii)(C)   of   the   NDPS   Act   and   acquitted   other   four   persons   of   all   the
charges   and   while   the   matter   being   heard   for   sentence,   it   was
pointed out that the appellant is an old illiterate lady from the rural
background,   having   no   previous   criminal   history   but   the   learned
trial   Judge,   has   not   examined   in   totality,   as   what   could   be
appropriate punishment to  her  and  sentenced the  appellant  for  15
years’   rigorous   imprisonment   and   a   fine   of   Rs.   1   lakh,   in   case   of
failure to pay amount of fine, a sentence of rigorous imprisonment
5

for   a   period   of   three   years   to   be   undergone   separately   under   the
judgment and order dated 8 th
 November 2012.
11. The order of acquittal against the four co­accused persons was
never a matter of challenge at the instance of the prosecution.  The
poor   illiterate   lady   preferred   an   appeal   before   the   High   Court
against the impugned judgment but the High Court, examining the
conviction   on   merits,   took   note   of   the   bare   facts   regarding   the
compliance   of   Sections   42,   50   and   55   of   the   NDPS   Act   made   and
since the psychotropic substance was recovered from the residence
of   the   appellant,   considered   it   to   be   the   basis   for   upholding
conviction   and   sentence   of   the   appellant   under   the   impugned
judgment dated 26 th
 February 2018.  
12. Neither the trial Court nor the High Court has considered that
the lady was illiterate and a senior citizen, was indeed residing but
completely   unknown   to   law,   with   two   grown   up   children,   with   no
previous background of being involved in any kind of criminal cases
at   any   point   of   time   in   her   life   time.     The   case   of   the   prosecution
was   that   on   being   received   a   telephone   call,   PW­07   Vinay   Singh
6

Baghel   along   with   his   beat   staff   reached   Village   Chikhali   and
accused appellant, who was residing there, was served a notice and
other   accused   persons   were   not   found   at   the   time   of   search,   the
present   appellant   was   taken   into   custody   and   against   the   two   co­
accused   persons   against   whom   there   was   an   allegation   that   they
were   involved   in   the   illegal   trade   and   who   supplied   this
psychotropic   substance   to   the   appellant,   both   were   charged   for
offence under Section 27­A of NDPS Act.
13. All   the   other   four   co­accused   persons   were   acquitted   by   the
learned   trial   court   under   judgment   dated   8 th
  November   2012   and
held   the   accused   appellant   guilty   of   the   offence   as   she   was   in
possession of the house from where the psychotropic substance was
recovered   and   appeal   preferred   at   her   instance   came   to   be
dismissed. 
14. We   are   not   dilating   upon   the   procedure   that   was   followed   in
the   instant   case   but   after   all   the   five   accused   persons   faced   trial,
unfortunately   the   appellant   alone   was   held   guilty,   and   the   trial
Judge,   without   examining   in   totality   of   the   matter   and   the   other
7

salient facts into consideration, sentenced her to 15 years’ rigorous
imprisonment   and   a   fine   of   Rs.   1   lakh,   in   case   of   default,   further
imprisonment for a period of 3 years.
15. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and also the
learned counsel for the State who has tried to persuade this Court
that looking into the nature of offence which has been committed by
the   appellant,   there   should   be   no   leniency   in   such   matters,
particularly, when the offence has been proved against her beyond
doubt   and   conviction   is   upheld   by   the   High   Court   under   Section
20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act.
16. It   may   be   noticed   that   the   minimum   sentence   prescribed
under the NDPS Act for such offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) is 10
years which may extend to 20 years with a fine of Rs. 1 lakh which
may   extend   to   Rs.   2   lakhs.     While   imposing   higher   than   the
minimum   punishment,   such   of   the   factors   which   are   to   be   taken
into   consideration   have   been   provided   under   Section   32B   of   the
NDPS   Act   but   after   we   have   gone   through   the   record   with   the
assistance of the counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the
8

learned   trial   Judge   as   well   as   the   High   Court   have   not   taken   into
consideration   the   factors   to   be   kept   in   mind   for   imposing   higher
than   the   minimum   sentence   provided   under   Section   32B   of   the
NDPS Act.
17. We   are   of   the   considered   view   that   the   offences   under   the
NDPS Act are very serious in nature and against the society at large
and no discretion is to be exercised in favour of such accused who
are  indulged  in   such   offences   under   the   Act.  It  is  a   menace   to   the
society,   no   leniency   should   be   shown   to   the   accused   persons   who
are   found   guilty   under   the   NDPS   Act.     But   while   upholding   the
same,   this   Court   cannot   be   oblivious   of   the   other   facts   and
circumstances as projected in the present case that the old illiterate
lady   from   rural   background,   who   was   senior   citizen   at   the   time   of
alleged incident, was residing in that house along with her husband
and   two   grown   up   children   who   may   be   into   illegal   trade   but   that
the prosecution failed to examine and taking note of the procedural
compliance   as   contemplated   under   Sections   42,   50   and   55   of   the
NDPS   Act,   held   the   appellant   guilty   for   the   reason   that   she   was
9

residing   in   that   house   but   at   the   same   time,   this   fact   was
completely   ignored   that   the   other   co­accused   were   also   residing   in
the   same   house   and   what   was   their   trade,   and   who   were   those
persons  who   were  involved  into   the  illegal  trade  providing  supplies
of   psychotropic   substances,   prosecution   has   never   cared   to
examine.
18. We   are   not   going   to   examine   the   question   any   further   but
taking   in   totality   of   the   matter   and   the   background   facts   which
have come on record that she was an illiterate senior citizen on the
date   of   the   incident,   i.e.,   15 th
  January   2011,   having   no   criminal
record, and was from the rural background, completely unknown to
the   law   and   unaware   of   what   was   happening   surrounding   her,   all
these incidental facts have not been considered by the learned trial
Court while awarding sentence to the appellant.
19. In   the   given   facts   and   circumstances,   while   upholding
conviction   of   the   appellant,   and   considering   the   old   age   of   the
accused appellant, who is a poor illiterate lady completely unaware
of the consequences, we consider it appropriate that the sentence of
10

the   accused   appellant   be   reduced   to   12   years’   rigorous
imprisonment   and   a   fine   of   Rs.   1   lakh   and   in   default,   to   further
undergo rigorous imprisonment of six months which shall meet the
ends of justice.  Ordered accordingly.
20. Consequently,   the   appeal   with   the   aforesaid   modifications
stands disposed of.
21. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
……………………..J.
(AJAY RASTOGI)
………………………J.
(C.T. RAVIKUMAR)
NEW DELHI
AUGUST 10, 2022.  
11