Back
1994 Supreme(MP) 809
1995 JLJ 727
(FULL BENCH)
V.L. Bhat, C.J., M.V. Tamaskar and Rajeev Gupta, JJ.
Rajendra Singh v. State of M.P.
M.P. No. 2360 of 1992; Decided on 28.9.1994.
None for petitioner; Anoop Choudhary, Addl. Advocate General for State.
Headnote:(1) Prisoners‘ Release on Probation Act, 1954 (M.P.) -- S. 2 -- release in probation under -- is not release in the sense of unconditional release or discharge from the sentence -- it is similar to suspension of sentence as contemplated under S. 432. Cr.P.C. 1994 JLJ 795 relied on. [Para 6
(2) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 -- Ss. 32A, 27 and 8/18 -- Prisoners‘ Release on Probation Act, 1954 (M.P.) -- S. 2 -- accused convicted for offence under the 1985 Act other than under S. 27 -- not entitled to the benefit of Act of 1954 -- his sentence cannot be suspended even by appellate or revisional Court.
Section 32A clearly bars the appellate or revisional Court from suspending the sentence imposed on the person under the provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act other than section 27. To hold that the words ‘suspension‘ used in section 32A of the N.D.P.S. Act has only this restricted meaning would lead to the consequence that while before the sentence attains finality, it cannot be suspended, after it attains finality, it can be suspended in the sense that the convicted person can be released on licence. This certainly could not have been the legislative intention underlying section 32A of the Act. M.P. No. 534/91 affirmed. [Para 6
(3) Words and Phrases -- word "suspended" -- means temporary stop, temporary delay, interruption or cessation. [Para 6
¼1½ cafn;ksa dk ifjoh{kk ij NksM+k tkuk vf/kfu;e] 1954 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 2 && ds v/khu ifjoh{kk ij NksM+k tkuk && v‘krZ NksM+s tkus vFkok naMkns‘k ls mUekspu ds vFkZ esa NksM+k tkuk ugha gS && og /kkjk 432] naM izfØ;k lafgrk ds v/khu ;Fkk vuq/;kr naMkns‘k ds fuyacu ds le:i gSA 1994 ts ,y ts 795 voyafcrA ¿ iSjk 6
¼2½ Lokid vks"kf/k vkSj eu%izHkkoh inkFkZ vf/kfu;e] 1985 && /kkjk 32d] 27 rFkk 8 lgifBr 18 && cafn;ksa dk ifjoh{kk ij NksM+k tkuk vf/kfu;e] 1954 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 2 && vfHk;qDr 1985 ds vf/kfu;e ds v/khu /kkjk 27 ds vfrfjDr vU; vijk/k ds nks"kfl) && 1954 ds vf/kfu;e ds Qk;ns dk gdnkj ugha gS && mldk naMkns‘k vihy vFkok iqujh{k.k U;k;ky; }kjk Hkh fuyafcr ugha fd;k tk ldrkA
/kkjk 32d }kjk Lokid vks"kf/k vkSj eu%izHkkoh inkFkZ vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 27 ds vfrfjDr vU; mica/kksa ds v/khu fdlh O;fDr ij vf/kjksfir naMkns‘k dks vihy vFkok iqujh{k.kk U;k;ky; }kjk fuyafcr fd;k tkuk Li"Vr% oftZr gSA Lokid vks"kf/k vkSj eu%izHkkoh inkFkZ vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 32d esa iz;qDr ‘‘kCn ^fuyacu* dk ;g ladh.kZ vFkZ gksuk vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd, tkus dk ifj.kke gksxk fd naMkns‘k vafre gksus ls igys fuyafcr ugha fd;k tk ldsxk] vafre gksus ds i‘pkr~ mls fuyafcr fd;k tk ldsxk vFkkZr~ fl)nks"k O;fDr vuqKfIr ij NksM+k tk ldsxkA vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 32d dk ewy fo/kk;h vk‘k; fuf‘pr rkSj ij ;g ugha jgk gksxkA izdh.kZ ;kfpdk Ø- 534@91 vfHkiq"VA ¿ iSjk 6
¼3½ ‘‘kCn rFkk okD; && ‘‘kCn ^^fuyafcr** && vFkZ gS vLFkk;h :dko] vLFkk;h foyac] fo?u ;k ifjfojfrA ¿ iSjk 6
U.L. Bhat, C.J. -- 1. The petitioner herein was convicted u/s 8, read with section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, (for short, the Act) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. one lac with default sentence of imprisonment for two years by the Special Court, Ratlam. His appeal was dismissed by the High Court. Having undergone a part of the sentence, he submitted an application to the State Government for release on licence u/s 2 of the M.P. Prisoners' Release on Probation Act, 1954, (for short, the Act of 1954). During the pendency of the application, he filed the present writ petition for issue of a writ of habeas corpus and release on bail pending consideration of his application for release on licence under the 1954 Act. This writ petition was heard at Indore Bench by a Division Bench consisting of V.D. Gyani, J. and S.D. Jha, J. The State relied on an earlier unreported decision of a Division Bench consisting of A.G. Qureshi, J. and S.D. Jha, J. in Jagtar Singh v. State of M.P. (M.P. No. 534/91), holding that a person convicted u/s 8, read with section 18 of the N.D.P.S. Act is not governed by the Provisions of the 1954 Act. The judgment is a brief one and does not give any reasons for the view taken. Gyani, J. took the view that the earlier Division Bench decision requires reconsideration. The Division Bench, therefore, referred the matter to a Larger Bench. That is how the case has come before us.
2. The 1954 Act has been enacted to provide for the release on licence of certain prisoners on conditions imposed by the Government. The State Government has framed M.P. Prisoners Release on Probation Rules, 1954, in exercise of rule making power conferred on it u/s 9 of the 1954 Act. Section 9(4) empowers the Government to make rules for defining the classes of offenders who may be conditionally released. Rule 3 prescribes the classes of persons who shall not be released under the Act. Since the Act was enacted and the rules were framed long before the coming into force of the N.D.P.S. Act, the question of Rule 3 including or not including persons convicted under the provisions of N.D.P.S. Act in the clauses prescribed under Rule 3 does not arise.
3. Out attention is invited to section 32-A of the N.D.P.S. Act which was incorporated by Amendment Act No.2 of 1989. It reads thus:
"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."
Section 15 to 31-A prescribes punishments for certain offences. Section 32 prescribes punishment for offence for which no punishment is provided under the N.D.P.S. Act. Section 27 deals with punishment for illegal possession in small quantity for personal consumption of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or consumption of such drug or substance. Under clause (a), maximum sentence prescribed is imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine or with both. Under clause (b), the maximum sentence prescribed is imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine or with both. Apparently, the offences dealt with u/s 27 are regarded as minor offences and comparatively lesser sentences are prescribed. Obviously, this is the reason why sentence u/s 27 of the Act has been excluded from the purview of section 32-A of the N.D.P.S. Act.
4. Section 32-A of the N.D.P.S. Act excludes sentences awarded other than under section 27, from suspension, remission or commutation. These expressions are no doubt found in the Criminal Procedure Code. Section 389 of the Code deals with suspension of sentence pending appeal and release of the appellant on bail. Section 432 confers on the appropriate Government power to suspend or remit sentence with or without conditions. Section
