NDPS - When minimum punishment is prescribed, no court can impose lesser punishment: SC

By Vijay Kumar

THE Supreme Court was dealing with a Narcotics offence case wherein the High Court had reduced the sentence. The Supreme Court observed, Section 20 (b) (ii) (C) stipulates that the minimum sentence will be ten years which may extend to twenty years and the minimum fine imposable is one lakhs rupees which may extend to two lakhs rupees. The provision also provides about the default clause which stipulates imposition of fine exceeding two lakh rupees, for the reasons to be recorded by the Court. When a minimum punishment is prescribed, no court can impose lesser punishment.

In Narendra Champaklal Trivedi v. State of Gujarat, while a submission was advanced that in exercise of power under Article 142 of the Constitution, that the Supreme Court can impose a lesser punishment than the prescribed one, the Court ruled that:-

"...where the minimum sentence is provided, we think it would not be at all appropriate to exercise jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to reduce the sentence on the ground of the so-called mitigating factors as that would tantamount to supplanting statutory mandate and further it would amount to ignoring the substantive statutory provision that prescribes minimum sentence for a criminal act..."

In this judgement delivered yesterday, the Supreme Court quashed the High Court judgement. We bring you the judgement today.

Please see Breaking News.