The appellant has raised before Court a novel question based on the provisions of the N.D.P.S. (Amendment) Act 9 of 2001. The contention is that the conviction contemplated in Section 20(b)(ii) (B) of the N.D.P.S. Act, as it stands amended now, violates Articles 20 of the Constitution of India as far as pre-amendment accusations are concerned.

2. It is pointed out that under the law as it stood on 25-10-2000 which is the date of occurrence in this case, for possession of ganja in question the appellant was liable for pubishment with imprisonment which could extend only upto 5 years and fine which could extend only upto 5 years and fine which could extend only upto Rs.50,000/-, whereas by application of Section 20(b) (ii) (B) as contemplated in Section 41 of the Amendment Act 9 of 2001, the offence would get converted to one attracting imprisonment which could extend upto 10 years and fine which could extend upto Rs. 1 Lakh. The contention is that notwithstanding the further provision in Section 41 of the Amendment Act itself that the accused need be given only the lesser of the two punishments above, the conviction itself becomes violate of Article 20 of the Constitution of India and hence the aspect of sentence is insignificant.

3. More facts. The appellant in this case, as accused before the Special Court for trial of N.D.P.S. cases, Vadakara, was charged with the offence under Section 20(b) (i) of the N.D.P.S. Act. It was alleged that on 25.10.2000 at about 4.45 p.m. he was found in possession of 1050 grams of ganja while he was at the waiting shed attached to the Bus stand behind the Bench Hospital, Kozhikode.

4. In the statement filed by the accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. he stated that the case was foisted based on some wrong facts revealed by one Allappu, who was apprehended on the very same date of occurrence viz., 25.10.2000 and that the accused was actually taken to custody while he was in the toilet of his house. He was not in possession of any ganja. The trial court disbelieved the said contention and found the accused guilty of the offence based on the evidence of pw1, who was the sub Inspector of police, Nadakkavu police station, which was corroborated by pw4. Who was a constable of the very same police station, as also pw3, who is an independent witness.

5. Mr. K.P. Mujeeb, who argued the case of the appellant, submitted that the conviction entered against the accused for the offence under Section 20(b) (ii) (B) of the N.D.P.S. Act offends Article 20 of the Constitution of India, in so far as the said offence attracts larger punishment vis-Ã -vis that in Section 20(b) (i) of the Pre-amended Act, which was in force on the date of occurrence and with which alone he could be and was charged before the trial court. Now he has been convicted of an offence not charged, and not in force, on the date of alleged commission of offence. He also submitted that the accused was prejudiced by the denial of opportunity to him for confronting the Investigating Officer and some other witnesses with Exts.D1 and D2, which were not in his possession as on the date of their examination. As and when Exts.D1 and D2 were received by him he filed Crl.M.P. No.508 of 2000 seeking to recall the witnesses examined earlier; but the court disallowed the request and thus he lost the valuable opportunity of confronting the prosecution witnesses with the said exhibits. It is submitted that if one more opportunity is given, the appellant would be able to establish before Court that the case is actually foisted and that the contraband produced before Court, in fact, is part of the contraband seized from Allappu elsewhere. Violation of Section 42 of the N.D.P.S. Act is also pointed out as a ground justifying the interference with the impugned judgment.

6. On the arguments advanced in the case the point that arise fro decision are:

1) Whether the conviction entered in the case offends Article 20 of the Constitution of India

2) Whether