JUDGMENT

Thomas, J.-This seems to be a very unfortunate case in which the appellant by his fatality had languished in jail already for a long period of 5 years, when as a matter of law he should have been moving about as a free citizen. Appellant in this case was charged by the Sessions Court with an offence under Section 20(b)(i) read with Section 8 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short the Act ). He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-. He filed an appeal before the High Court and a learned single Judge who heard the appeal confirmed the conviction and sentence and dismissed his appeal. He filed this appeal by special leave from jail.

2. The misfortune hovering around him continued to persist as the counsel appointed as amicus curiae to argue for him did not turn up and we had to remove him as A.C. We appointed another counsel (Mr. Bimal Roy Jad) as amicus curiae. On 11.8.1999 we heard him and the learned counsel for the State in detail and reserved the Judgment. Thereafter we felt that the appeal should be re-heard as certain new features have emerged while contemplating the factual posi