( 1 ) RULE. Learned Government Counsel Mr. Nigam Shukla waives the service of Rule for the respondents.

( 2 ) THE present petition, upon a conjoint reading of the provisions contained under Sec. 32-A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as n. D. P. S. Act) and the Supreme Court pronouncement in the case of Maru Ram v. Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 2147, requires a complete recognition.

( 3 ) THE undisputed facts are that , the petitioner Dineshbhai Patel, the prisoner, lodged at Central Jail, Sabarmati, Ahmedabad, came to be convicted for the offences punishable under N. D. P. S. Act, 1985 vide orders of conviction dated September 23, 1988. According to him, he is entitled to all the remissions which he has earned and that, if that is taken into consideration, the sentence awarded to him has become over and he should be out of the prison. This view being repeatedly canvassed by the petitioner is not being countenanced by the respondents, placing absolutely false reliance upon the provisions contained under Sec. 32-A of the N. D. P. S. Act, 1985. The say of the respondents appears to be that, under the said provisions of the Act, no sentence awarded under the Act be suspended or remitted or commuted.

( 4 ) SECTION 32-A which came to be inserted by Act No. 2 of 1989 with effect from May 29, 1989 runs thus :"32-A. No suspension, remission or commutation in any sentence awarded under this Act - Notwithstanding anything in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (II of 1974) or any other law for the time being in force but subject to the provisions of sec. 33, no sentence awarded under this Act (other than Sec. 27) shall be suspended or remitted or commuted. "it is eloquently clear that Section starts with a non-obstante clause and says that, no sentence awarded under the N. D. P. S. Act, shall be suspended or remitted or commuted. The question which precisely arises for the consideration and the decision is as to whether the provisions contained under Sec. 32-A of the Act would be attracted in case of a person who has been convicted before Sec. 32-A came on the Statute Book under the Amending Act of 1989 with effect from May 19, 1989. It is not in dispute that, the prisoner came to be convicted vide the judgment and order dated September 23, 1989 (sic. 1988 ). It is, therefore, abundantly clear that the prisoner came to be convicted for the offences under N. D. P. S. Act, 1985 before the incorporation of the provisions of Sec. 32-A of the Act of 1989.

( 5 ) THERE was an endeavour on the part of learned Government Counsel Mr. Nigam Shukla to urge that, looking to the all pervasive provisions under Sec. 32-A of the N. D. P. S. Act, 1985, the prisoner would not be entitled to any remission whatsoever, which would otherwise be available to him under the Jail rules. This contention cannot be accepted.

( 6 ) THE language employed, while drafting the provisions under Sec. 32-A of the N. D. P. S. Act, 1985, does not say that the abovesaid provisions are retrospective or retroactive in opration. If the Legislature wanted to say that these provisions which run counter to the right of an early release of the prisoners, are to be retrospective or retroactive in operation, the Legislature in their great wisdom could have said so under express language. A part of criminal Statute which either provides punishment or puts bar on the early release of a prisoner cannot be accepted to be retrospective in operation in absence of express mandate. The provisions must be express in letter and spirit. This not being so, it cannot be urged that Sec. 32-A of the Act of 1985 is retrospective or retroactive in operation. Even if the principle of necessary implication is accepted for a moment and one has to fall back upon the exercise of the interpretation of Statute on the basis of implied intention or necessary implication, then also, in whole of the Act, there is nothing which would be suggestive of