Y. K. Sabharwal,j.

( 1 ) IN Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short the Act ) as originally enacted there was no provision prohibiting grant of suspension, remission or commution p73of sentences. By Act No. 2 of 1989, Section 32-A was inserted in the Act,inter-alia, providing that no sentence awarded under the Act (other than Section 27) shall be suspended or remitted or commuted. Section 32-A came into force with effect from 29th May, 1989. It reads as under:-

"32-A. No suspension, remission or commutation in any sentence awarded under this Act.- Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for the time being in force but subject to the provisions of Section 33, no sentence awarded under this Act (other than Section 27) shall be suspended or remitted or commuted. "

( 2 ) THE question for determination is whether Section 32-A would apply to a case where offence has been committed before 29th May, 1989.

( 3 ) THE petitioner says that by orders passed on 26th February 1987 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and a fine of Rs. 1 lakh and in case of default of payment of fine, he has been ordered to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for two and half years and that his appeal has been dismissed. It is, however, claimed that Special Leave Petition is pending determination in the Supreme Court of India. The petitioner who is undergoing imprisonment in jail claims that he is entitled to grant of remission s per rules and on the basis of computation of remissions, on payment of fine of Rs. l lakh, he would become entitled to be released from jail and set at liberty with effect from 8th November, 1993. The petitioner says that he is prepared to deposit the amount of fine immediately if remissions are given effect to and the same is communicated to him.

( 4 ) THE writ petition was filed from jail. Since the petitioner did not have the assistance of an advocate and the legal question involved was likely to affect number of other similarly placed persons in jail. We requested Mr. D. R. Sethi, a leading lawyer of this Court practising on Criminal side, to act as amicus curiae for the petitioner and assist this court. Mr. Sethi readily agreed. We place on record our deep appreciation for the forceful and painstaking presentation of the case put forth by Mr. Sethi on behalf of the petitioner.

( 5 ) THE principal contention of Mr. Sethi is based on Article 20 of the Constitution of India in that the petitioner cannot be subjected to a penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of commission of the offence. Admittedly, the alleged offence was committed and even the order of conviction and sentence was passed before enforcement of Section 32-A. It is urged that under the law in force at the time of the alleged commission of the offence, the petitioner was entitled to grant of remissions and thus he would not have undergone the entire sentence of 10 years but a shorter sentence because of the benefit of remissions. The said benefit is being denied to the petitioner because of Section 32-A which, it is urged is not legal as this Section is not applicable to the case of the petitioner since it was inserted in the Act after commission of alleged offence. It is urged that the stand of the respondents is violative of Article 20 of the Constitution of India.

( 6 ) MR. HANDA, learned counsel for the State, on the other hand contends that in view of prohibition contained in Section 32-A the petitioner is not entitled to grant of any remission. It is urged that the remission is a concession which can be extended only if the law permits. According to Mr. Handa the legal provisions as existing on the date of consideration of the grant or otherwise of the remissions is the relevant consideration and not the legal provisions existing at the time of commission of the offe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document