Amar Dutt, J.

1. On December 16, 2004, after bail had already been granted to the appellant Tule Ram, a Division of this Court had observed as under :-

"Bail has already been granted in this case. However, we have also perused the data provided with regard to the pendency or disposal of appeals under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. Copies of this data be supplied forthwith to Mr. Pardeep Singh and Mr. Sanjeev Sheokand personally, so that if possible, some principles can be laid down with regard to the grant or refusal of bail under the Narcotic Act as the pendency of appeals is rather prolonged. Adjourned to 7.5.2005".

While examining this question on May 9, 2005, the Bench dealing with the case was of the view that before discussing the issue raised in the order dated December 16, 2004 the Court would be required to go into the question as to what was the extent of the power for suspension of sentence which could be exercised by the High Court while dealing with the applications for suspension of sentence in appeals under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "the NDPS Act") that were pending before this Court when seen in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Maktool Singh v. State of Punjab, 1999(2) RCR(Criminal) 130 and Dadu @ Tulsidas v. State of Maharashtra, 2000(4) RCR(Criminal) 275 and Section 37 of the NDPS Act. This Bench was constituted to consider and answer this question.

2. We have heard Sarvshri Maharaj Kumar, appearing for the appellant, R.S. Cheema, Advocate General, Punjab, with S.S. Randhawa, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, B.S. Rana, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, Gautam Dutt appearing for R.S. Rai, Senior Standing Counsel for U.T. Chandigarh and A.P.S. Deol and are grateful for clarity with which they have assisted in appreciating the legal points, which are involved in this exercise.

3. For appreciating the points involved, it would be but appropriate to refer to the Legislative intent on account of which the NDPS Act was brought on the statute book. The objects and reasons, which were initially sought to be achieved in 1985, were as under :-

"The statutory control over narcotic drugs is exercised in India through a number of Central and State enactments. The principal Central Acts, namely, the Opium Act, 1857, the Opium Act, 1878 and the Dangerous Drugs Act, 1930 were enacted a long time ago. With the passage of time and the developments in the field of illicit drug traffic and drug abuse at national and international level, many deficiencies in the existing laws have come to notice, some of which are indicated below :-

(i) The scheme of penalties under the present Acts is not sufficiently deterrent to meet the challenge of well organized gangs of smugglers. The Dangerous Drugs Act, 1930 provides for a maximum term of imprisonment of 3 years with or without fine and 4 years imprisonment with or without fine for repeat offences. Further, no minimum punishment is prescribed in the present laws, as a result of which drug traffickers have been sometimes let off by the Courts with nominal punishment. The country has for the last few years been increasingly facing the problem of transit traffic of drugs coming mainly from some of our neighbouring countries and destined mainly to Western countries.

(ii) The existing Central laws do not provide for investing the officers of a number of important Central enforcement agencies like narcotics, customs, central excise etc. with the power of investigation of offences under the said laws.

(iii) Since the enactment of the aforesaid three Centrals Act a vast body of international law in the field of narcotics control has evolved through various international treaties and protocols. The Government of India has been a party to these treaties and conventions which entail several obligations which are not covered or are only partly covered by the present Acts.

(iv) During