LexBUDH SINGH versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2013] 2 S.C.R. 272 BUDH SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR. (Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 15 of 2012) MARCH 11, 2013 [P. SATHASIVAM AND RANJAN GOGOi, JJ.] Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985: c s. 32-A (as introduced w.e.f. 29.5.1989) - Sentences awarded under the Act not to be suspended, remitted or commuted - Effect of - Accused convicted u/s 15 on 27. 7. 1990 for offence committed on 13. 12. 1988 - Held: There is no vice of unconstitutionality in the section insofar as it takes 0 away the powers of the executive conferred upon it ulss 432 ana 433 CrPC to suspend, remit or commute the sentence of a convict under the Act - Exclusion of benefit of remission cannot be understood to have the effect of enlarging the period of incarceration of an accused convicted under the Act E - Nor can s. 32-A have the effect of making a convict undergo a longer period of sentence than what the Act had contemplated at the time of commission of the offence. The petitioner, who was convicted u/s 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 F on 27.7.1990, filed the instant writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of 32-A of the Act on the ground that the exclusion of benefit of remission by introduction of s.32-A would have the effect of making the petitioner undergo a longer period of incarceration than what was G visualized by the Act as prevailing on the date of alleged commission of the crime by him i.e. 13.12.1988. The question for consideration before the Court was: "whether the remission(s) earned by a convict operates as a reduction of the sentence." H 272 BUDH SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR. 273 Dismissing the writ petition, the Court A HELD: 1.1 Insofar as the challenge to s. 32-A of the NDPS Act founded on violation of Arts. 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950 is concerned, in Dadu alias Tulsldas* this Court has held that there is no vice of 8 unconstitutionality in the section insofar as it takes away the powers of the executive conferred upon it u/ss 432 and 433 CrPC to suspend, remit or commute the sentence of a convict under the Act. [para 2] (275-8-C, G; 276-A] *Dadu alias Tulsidas vs. State of Maharashtra (2000) 8 sec 437 - relied on. c 1.2 With regard to challenge founded on alleged violation of Art. 20(1) of the Constitution, s.32-A of NDPS o Act ex facie has nothing to do with the punishment or penalty imposed under the Act. In fact, no change or alteration in the severity of the penalty under the NDPS Act has been brought about by the introduction of s. 32A with effect from 29.05.1989. Whats. 32A has done is to E obliterate the benefit of remission(s) that a convict under the NDPS Act would have normally earned. The correct legal position, as has been held by this Court in Sarat Chandra Rabha's case is that the remission(s) do not in any way touch or affect the penalty/sentence imposed by a court. In view of this settled position of law, the F exclusion of benefit of remission cannot be understood to have the effect of enlarging the period of incarceration of an accused convicted under the NDPS Act. Nor can 's. 32A have the effect of making a convict undergo a longer period of sentence than what the Act had G contemplated at the time of commission of the offence. (para 9] (279-B-E] Sarat Chandra Rabha and Others vs. Khagendranath Nath and Others 1961 SCR 133 =AIR 1961 Supreme Court H 274 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 2 S.C.R. A 334; Maru Ram vs. Union of India and Others (1981) 1 SCC 107· relied on B Case Law Reference: (2000) 8 sec 437 1961 SCR 133 (1981) 1 sec 101 relied on relied on relied on para 2 para 5 para 9 CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Crl.) c No. 15 of 2012. D Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. K.G. Bhagat, Divya Shukla, Dattatray Vyas, Vineet Bhagat for the Petitioner. Nupur Choudhary, Kamal Mohan Gupta for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by E RANJAN GOGOi, J. 1. The petitioner has been convicted under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter for short "the NDPS Act") by an order of the learned Sessions Judge, Sirsa, Haryana dated 27.7.1990. He has been sentenced to undergo RI for a F period of 10 years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- (One lakh only). in default, to suffer further RI for a period of 3 years. The said order has
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.