2009 (5) TMI 910 - SC - Indian Laws

Court rules no retroactive effect for Amending Act, upholds conviction.

Jawahar Singh @ Bhagat Ji Versus State Of Gnct Of Delhi

The court held that the Amending Act did not have a retrospective effect. The appellant's conviction and sentence were upheld based on the law at the time ... Whether the quantum of sentence imposed upon the appellant was required to be considered having regard to the amendment carried out by the Parliament in the year 2001 in the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985? Issues Involved:1. Interpretation of the amendment in the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 by the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Amendment) Act, 2001.2. Retrospective effect of the Amending Act.3. Quantum of sentence considering the amendment.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Interpretation of the Amendment in the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985:The primary issue in this appeal revolves around the interpretation of the amendment made in the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 by the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Amendment) Act, 2001. The amendment introduced definitions for 'commercial quantity' and 'small quantity' and made changes to Section 21 of the Act, which prescribes the punishment for contravention in relation to manufactured drugs and preparations. The amended Section 21 differentiates the punishment based on the quantity of the narcotic drug involved, with varying degrees of imprisonment and fines.2. Retrospective Effect of the Amending Act:The appellant contended that the Amending Act, being beneficial to the accused, should have a retrospective effect. However, the court held that the quantum of punishment should be as per the law prevailing at the time of the commission of the offence and the date of conviction. The court emphasized that a substantive provision should be presumed to have prospective operation unless specifically provided otherwise by the Parliament. The court cited the principle that all statutes should be presumed to have prospective operation only.3. Quantum of Sentence Considering the Amendment:The appellant's counsel argued that the court should consider the amendment while determining the quantum of sentence, given that the appellant had been in custody for a long period. The court, however, rejected this argument, stating that as on the date of the commission of the offence and the date of conviction, there was no distinction between a small quantity and a commercial quantity. Therefore, the question of inflicting a lesser sentence by reason of the provisions of the Amending Act did not arise. The court also referred to the proviso appended to Section 41(1) of the Amending Act, which categorically provides that the amendment shall not have any effect on pending appeals, indicating that concluded trials should not be reopened.Supporting Judgments and Precedents:The court referred to several judgments to support its decision:- State Through CBI, Delhi v. Gian Singh: The court discussed the implications of an expired statute and the application of a subsequent statute with a more lenient sentence.- Basheer alias N.P. Basheer v. State of Kerala: The court noted that applying the amended Act to cases where trials had concluded could result in retrials, defeating the objective of avoiding delay in trials.- Amarsingh Ramjibhai Barot v. State of Gujarat: The court reiterated that the minimum punishment under Section 21(c) of the Act is ten years with a fine of Rs. 1,00,000.- The Superintendent, Narcotic Control Bureau v. Parash Singh: The court opined that the Amending Act did not create any new offence.- E. Micheal Raj v. Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau: The court noted that this decision did not provide a ratio and did not consider the effect of the amendment.Conclusion:The court concluded that the Amending Act cannot be said to have any retrospective effect and dismissed the appeal accordingly. The appellant's conviction and sentence, as per the law prevailing at the time of the commission of the offence, were upheld.