Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
KURIAN JOSEPH, ARUN MISHRA, JJ.
Jitender Singh - Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana and another - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No(s). 1073 of 2011
Decided On : 03-12-2015
Remission - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - The court held that the appellant's request for remission of sentence under the NDPS Act was rightly rejected based on the constitutional validity of Section 32A, which denies remission of sentence.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant sought the benefit of remission under the NDPS Act, but the High Court rejected the request based on the constitutional validity of Section 32A, which denies remission of sentence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it, recalling the appellant's bail and ordering him to surrender for serving the remaining part of the sentence.
Issues: Constitutional validity of Section 32A of the NDPS Act, denial of remission of sentence, appellant's request for remission.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the judgments in Dadu alias Tulsidas v. State of Maharashtra and Krishan & Others v. State of Haryana & Ors., which upheld the constitutionality of Section 32A and denied remission of sentence under the NDPS Act.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, the bail granted to the appellant was recalled, and he was ordered to surrender for serving the remaining part of the sentence.
ORDER :
The appellant who is convicted and sentenced under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'NDPS Act') sought the benefit of remission and it is seen from the Jail Custody Certificate dated 14.05.2010 that actual sentence undergone by the appellant is only 5 years, 1 month and 27 days. Under Section 32A of the NDPS Act, 1985, no sentence awarded under the NDPS Act could be suspended/remitted/commuted. The constitutional validity of the subject matter was challenged before this Court in Dadu alias Tulsidas v. State of Maharashtra, (2008) 8 SCC 437, wherein it has been held that Section 32A was not unconstitutional insofar as denial of remission is concerned.
2. The decision was thereafter followed and affirmed in the Judgment in Criminal Appeal No.973/2008, Krishan & Others v. State of Haryana & Ors., (2013) 14 SCC 24. Therefore, the High Court was right in rejecting the request made by the appellant for considering the remission of his sentence against the total period of sentence.
3. There is no merit in the appeal, which is, accordingly dismissed. The order dated 2nd May, 2011 granting bail to the appellant is recalled. His bail bonds are cancelled. He shall surrender forthwith for serving the remaining part of the sentence.
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
