In Brief
In this narcotics case, the Supreme Court clarified when courts can impose sentences higher than the statutory minimum under the NDPS Act. The appellant challenged his 16-year sentence for possessing 609.6 gm of heroin, arguing that no factors listed in Section 32B(a)-(f) were present. The Court held that Section 32B's phrase "such factors as it may deem fit" does not restrict courts to only enumerated aggravating factors. Quantity of the drug seized is a relevant consideration, even though not explicitly listed in Section 32B. The Court reduced his sentence to 12 years while upholding the principle that higher-than-minimum punishment can be justified by relevant factors including quantity.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.