M. Sampat v. State of Chhattisgarh

2021 INSC 226

The Appellant was in the vehicle when the said vehicle was intercepted by the police. Ms. Priyanjali Singh strenuously argued that the Appellant, who was not the owner of the truck, but only a poor conductor, 22/23 years of age at the time of the incident, could not possibly have committed the offence alleged. He was not even aware of the fact that ‘Ganja’ was being carried in the truck in question. Under Section 20(b) whoever produces, manufactures, possesses, sells, purchases or even transports cannabis (including ‘Ganja’) is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may not be less than ten years, but might extend to twenty years, and fine in addition to imprisonment, which shall not be less than one lakh but might extend to two lakh rupees. Having regard to the huge quantity (3332 kgs.) of ‘Ganja’ (cannabis) carried on the truck, it is difficult to accept Ms. Priyanjali Singh’s argument that the Appellant, an employee of the truck, described as a conductor, but actually a helper, was not even aware of the fact that ‘Ganja’ was being carried in the truck. The truck was almost full of ‘Ganja’ camouflaged with only a few bags of onions at the top. After going through the impugned judgment and order of the High Court, the judgment and order of the Trial Court and after hearing Ms. Priyanjali Singh, learned Amicus Curiae, and Dr. Rakesh Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State of

Chhattisgarh, we do not find any cogent ground to interfere with the concurrent findings of the High Court and the Trial Court convicting the Appellant of offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act. The Trial Court imposed maximum punishment of rigorous imprisonment for twenty years and fine of Rs.2 lakhs for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act. In default of payment of fine each of the accused were to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for three years. However, the order of sentence passed by the Trial Court did not disclose the reasons for awarding the maximum punishment to the Appellant. Although the Trial Court has recorded that the accused and their counsel were heard on the question of sentence, there is no whisper of the arguments advanced. It appears that the enormity of the quantity of ‘Ganja’ seized from the lorry, swayed the Trial Court to impose the maximum punishment. The Trial Court neither considered the extent of involvement of the Appellant nor considered if there were any extenuating circumstances for imposing a lesser punishment. The High Court allowed the appeal of the Appellant in part. While maintaining the conviction, the substantive jail sentence was reduced to 15 years from 20 and the amount of fine reduced to Rs.1 lakh from Rs.2 lakhs. While the High Court has rightly reduced the sentence, the order of the High Court does not indicate the reasons why a sentence of imprisonment higher than the minimum was thought

necessary. The Appellant who was only an indigent helper (described as conductor) on the truck, 22/23 years of age, did not make any attempt to abscond, unlike the driver Narsaiya. He did not show any suspicious behaviour. The owner of the truck is absconding. The driver T. Narsaiya had made an attempt to flee. There is nothing against the Appellant except that he was in the truck containing the contraband narcotic drugs, of which he was helper, and some documents pertaining to the truck were found from him. As pointed out by Ms. Priyanjali Singh, learned Amicus Curiae, the very fact that the Appellant remained in jail and has filed a jail petition shows the poor financial condition of the Appellant. As an impecunious helper earning a meager salary, the Appellant could not possibly have had any say with regard to the articles loaded in the truck. There is no definite evidence to establish that the Appellant knowingly committed the offence. However presumption, having regard to the surrounding circumstances has resulted in his conviction. Even assuming, he realized that “Ganja” was being loaded, he could perhaps do little but to remain a mute spectator to the commission of the offence, as otherwise, he would have risked his job, his only means of survival, if not his life. Ms. Priyanjali Singh submits that the Appellant is a first time offender. As argued by her, the Appellant is not the owner of the vehicle. The owner is, as Dr. Rakesh Pandey, learned counsel

for the State of Chhattisgarh has pointed out, absconding. The driver of the vehicle, who had been convicted, has died in the meanwhile. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the Appellant, an indigent helper on a truck, only 22/23 years of age at the time of incident and a first time offender, and considering that nothing was recovered from his custody except for documents pertaining to the vehicle, of which he was a helper (described as conductor), we deem it appropriate to reduce the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone, which in any case, far exceeds the minimum sentence of imprisonment of 10 years. The appeal is partly allowed and the order of the High Court is modified to the extent indicated above. The Appellant shall be set free. Pending application(s) if any, stand disposed of. …………………………………………………….J. [INDIRA BANERJEE] …………………………………………………….J. [KRISHNA MURARI] NEW DELHI APRIL 05, 2021