State Of Punjab vs Piara Singh

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

Court dated 17th 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

small quantity in terms of the Notification dated 2nd

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

already indicated above was of the 15th of February,

2001 and that the High Court rendered its judgment on

the 17th 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.