ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. - (1.) This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 17.04.2018 of High Court of Calcutta, partly allowing the appeal filed by the appellant challenging his conviction and sentence under Section 21 (C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The Additional District and Sessions Judge had convicted the appellant and sentenced him under Section 21 (c) to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of eighteen years and to pay fine of Rs. 2 lakh, and in default to suffer imprisonment for twelve months. High Court while maintaining the conviction has reduced the sentence to sixteen years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2 lakh and in default of payment of such fine, appellant was to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Aggrieved against the judgment of the High Court this appeal has been filed. This Court issued notice on 26.11.2018 limited to the quantum of the sentence.
(2.) We have heard counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel appearing for the State of West Bengal for the respondent.
(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant could not have been awarded sentence of more than ten years which is the minimum sentence provided for offence under Section 21(c), since the Court below did not advert to Section 32B of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and has not returned any finding that any of the factors for imposing the punishment higher than the minimum term of imprisonment as enumerated in clauses (a) to (f) are present in the facts of the present case. He submits that punishment higher than the minimum term of imprisonment can be awarded as per Section 32B only when any of the factors enumerated in 32B from (a) to (f) are present. There being no aggravating factors as enumerated in clauses (a) to (f) present in the facts of the present case, appellant could have been awarded only sentence of ten years, which is a minimum sentence for punishment under Section 21(c).;