Full Judgment Text
Crl.A. 112 o f 2011
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 112 OF 2011
STATE OF PUNJAB ..... APPELLANT
VERSUS
PIARA SINGH ..... RESPONDENT
O R D E R
1. This appeal by way of special leave is directed
against the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High
th
Court dated 17 July, 2007 whereby the High Court has
held that poppy husk which was 26 kilograms in weight,
had been recovered from the respondent-accused was a
nd
small quantity in terms of the Notification dated 2
October, 2001 and as such the sentence of ten years
which had been awarded to the respondent for the
offence under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 should be reduced to
that already undergone i.e. two years. The only point
raised by the learned counsel for the State of Punjab
Crl.A. 112 o f 2011
2
is that the aforesaid amendment would not be applicable
to appeals that were pending in the High Court and as
such the judgment of the High Court was erroneous on
this score. We see that the judgment of the trial
court convicting the respondent and sentencing him as
th
already indicated above was of the 15 of February,
2001 and that the High Court rendered its judgment on
th
the 17 of July, 2007. It appears to us that the
issue has been settled by this Court in Basheer V.
State of Kerala (2004) 3 SCC 609 [para 28] wherein it
has been observed as under:
“28. In the result, we are of the view
that the proviso to Section 41 (1) of
the amending Act 9 of 2001 is
Constitutional and is not hit by Article
14. Consequently, in all cases, in which
the trials had concluded and appeals
were pending on 2.10.2001, when amending
Act 9 of 2001 came into force, the
amendments introduced by the amending
Act 9 of 2001 would not be applicable
and they would have to be disposed off
in accordance with the NDPS Act, 1985,
as it stood before 2.102001. Since there
are other contentions of law and fact
raised in each of these cases, they
would have to be placed before the
appropriate Benches for decision and
disposal in accordance with the law.”
2. As the Hon'ble Judge of the High Court appears
to have been oblivious of this judgment, we are of the
opinion that this matter needs to be remanded for a re-
look on all issues to the High Court, more
Crl.A. 112 o f 2011
3
particularly, as the respondent, though served, has not
put in appearance.
3. The appeal is allowed and the matter is remanded
to the High Court for decision afresh in accordance
with law.
..................J
[HARJIT SINGH BEDI]
..................J
[GYAN SUDHA MISRA]
NEW DELHI
AUGUST 10, 2011.