Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the amendment to the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 created a new offence so as to sustain charges under the amended penal provision, and whether a punishment greater than that prescribed on the date of the offence could be imposed.
Analysis: Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India prohibits conviction for an act not constituting an offence under the law in force at the time of the commission of the act and also bars imposition of a penalty greater than that then prescribed. The amendment made to Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 altered only the punishment structure for offences relating to cannabis and did not amend the ingredients of the offence under Section 8. Since the basic offence remained unchanged, the amendment did not create a new offence. However, the amended provision could not be applied so as to inflict a punishment higher than what was originally prescribed for the accused.
Conclusion: The amendment did not create a new offence, but the accused could not be subjected to a higher punishment than the one applicable when the offence was committed.
Ratio Decidendi: An amendment enhancing punishment does not, by itself, create a new offence, but Article 20(1) forbids retrospective imposition of a harsher penalty than that prescribed at the time of the offence.