LexJAWAHAR SINGH @ BHAGAT JI versus STATE OF GNCT OF DELHI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
..
··--· ...
[2009] 7 S.C.R. 495
. ,·
JAWAHAR SINGH @ BHAGAT JI
A·
v.
'
STATE OF GNCT OF DELHI
-~-../-~
Criminal Appeal No. 910 of 2009
MAY 5, 2009
8
(S.B. SINHA AND !?R. MUKUNDAKAM. SHARMA, JJ.)
.
:
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Aet; · 1985: · ·
Sections 2(viia), 2(xxiiia), 21, 31, 34 - Amended .by the
Amendment Act, 2001 - Effect of - The amending Act cannot c
be said to have retrospective effect.
Interpretation of an amendment made in the Narcotic
. Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act~ 1985 by reason . ·
.of the .Amendment Act, 2001 which ha~ came into effect
from 2.10.2001 is in issue in the appe_aL
·' D
Dismissing the appea1, ·the Court
HELD: 1. The offence indisputably took piace on
26.09.1999. Appellant was convicted by a judgment dated
5.11.2000. The Amending.Act came into force on. 2.10.2001. E
.. ft is now beyond any doubt or dispute that the quantum· ..
of punishment to be inflicted on an accused upon
recording a judgment of conviction would Ire as per the
' ·law, which was prevailing at the relevant time. [Paras 8,
. 10] [498-D-E, 499~E-F]
2. As on the date of commission of the offence and/
or the date of conviction, there was no distinction between
a small quantity and a commercial quantity, question of
infliction of a lesser sentence by reason ofthe provisions
of the Amending Act, would not arise. [Para 10} [499-F-G]
F
G
3. It is also a well-settled principle' of law· that a .
substantive provision unless specifically provided fot or ·.
otherwise intended by the Parliament should be held to
have a prospective OJ)eration. One of the facets of Rule or<
495
H
·,·
496
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2009] 7 S.C.R.
A Law is also that all statutes should be presumed to have
a prospective operation only. [Para 1 O] [499-G-H]
4. The Amending Act did not bring about any signi-
ficant or material changes in the parent Act. The Parliament
had given effect thereto with effect from a particular date,
a· viz., 2.10.2001. If the Amending Act was to be given a retro-
spective effect, the amendments carried out in regard to
the provisions for holding of trial would have been required
to be complied with warranting a retrial in terms thereof.
"
Thus, the Amending Act cannot be said .to have any
c retrospective effect. [Para 12, 17] {.501-G-H; 502-A, 505-G]
Rattan Lal v. The State ofPunjab AIR 1965 SC 444 -
held inapplicable.
State Through CBI, Delhi v. Gian Singh (1999) 9 SCC
0 312; Basheer alias N.P Basheer v. State of Kera/a (2004) 3
SCG 609; Amarsingh Ramjibhai Barot v. State of Gujarat
(2005) 7 SCC 550; The Superintendent, Narcotic Control
Bureau v. Parash Singh 2008 (13) SCALE 372 and E. Micheal
Raj· v. Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau (2008) · 5
E
F
H
sec 161 - referred to.
,.;; - -
-
Case Law Reference
(1999) s sec 312
referred to
Para 11
(200~} 3 sec 609
referred to
Para 13
.... -;r~ -·~
(2005) 1 sec 550
referred to
Para 14
2008 (13) SCALE 372 referred to
Para 14
(2008) 5 sec 161
referred to
Para 1~_
AIR 1965 SC 444
held inapplicable Para 16
CRIMINALAPPELLATEJURISDICTION: CriminalAppeal
No. 91 O of 2009
From the Judgement and Order dated 23.03.2007 of the
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Criminal Appeal No. 690 of2000.
•
. ..
JAWAHAR SINGH @ BHAGAT JI V. -
497
STATE OF GNCT OF DELHI
Gp. Capt. Daran Singh Bhati,Aishwarya Bhati, ReKha Glri,
A
Sweta Rani, Himanshu Singh, for the AppeJlant. · ···.
K. Am~eshwari, Rachna Srivastava, Mohd. Noorullah,
Himani Jadaun (for Anil Katiyar) with him for the Respondent.
The Judgement of the Court was delivered by
··
8
S.B .. SINHA, J.
,.
1. Leave granted.
2. Interpretation of an amendment made in the Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short "the C
Act") by reason of the Narcotic Drugs and P~ychotropic
Substances (Amendment) .Act, 2001 (Act No. 9 of 2001) (for
short "the Amending Act") which has come into effect from
2.10.2001 is the question involved in this appeal.
3. The.said question arises in the following factual matrix.
D.
On or about 26.09.1999, one Attar Singh, Sub-Inspector
received a secret information that the appellant herein would
come to a place known as Yamuna Pusta to deliver a
consignment of smack. On the basis of the said information, he
sent an intimation to the Asstt. Commissioner of Police,
E
Narcotics Branch, whereupon he was directed by the Station
House Officer to conduct a raid. . .
At about Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.