LexMAKTOOL SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
)~
A
MAKTOOL SINGH
~
v.
STATE OF PUNJAB
MARCH 17, 1999
B
[K.T. THOMAS AND M.B. SHAH, JJ.)
Narcotic Drngs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 :
Section 32-A, 36-B, 27 and 37-Bar in Section 32-A against suspension
c of sentence passed on to accused (except Section 27}-0bject of-Held, was
to curb not only the powers of the government under Sections 432 and 433 of
the CrPC but also the power of the High Court to suspend sentence-Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973, Sections 432 and 433-lnterpretation of Statutes--Ex-
temal aid-Statement of Objects and Reasons, taken into considera-
lion-Constitution of India, Articles 72 and 161.
D
¥
Sections 32-A and 36-B-f'owers of High Court .under Chapter XXIX
of CrPC preserved by Section 36-B of the Act-Scope of-Held, did not
include the power to suspend the sentence during the pendency of the ap-
"'
peal-Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 389, Chapter XXIX.
E
Sections 32-A and 36-cB-lnterrelation between-Held, Section 32-A
overrides the provisions of Section 36-B-lnterpretation of Statutes-::Non
obstante clause-Effect of
Sections 32-A and 26-Sentence under Section 26-Held, could not be
F
s11spended by the trial court resorting to Section 389(3) CrPC-Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973, Section 389.
"
Words and Phrases-Word "awarded" occurring in Section 32-Mean-
ing oHn the context of Narcotic Drng~ and Psychotropic Substances Act,
1985-Held, not restricted to sentence passed by the trial court.
G
Constitution of India-Article 136-Relief-Statute curtailing court's
power to suspend the appeal pending appeaHn view of prohibition con-
tained in Section 32-A on one hand and apprehension of miscarriage of
-.. ...
justice in many cases due to long pendency of appeals on the other
hand-Held, the problem could be solved by Parliament-Till then Registry
H of High Courts directed to prioritise the appeals pending against conviction
1156
M. SINGH v. STATE
1157
under the Act-Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 19{J5, Sec-
A
tions 32-A and 36-B.
The question involved in this appeal was whether the sentence
passed on a person convicted under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Art, 1985 (Act) could be suspended during the pendeucy of
appeal presented by him. The appellant did not succeed in getting the B
se_ntence, passed on him, suspended by the High Court though he moved
challenging his conviction and sentence. Hence this appeal.
It was contended by the appellant that Section 36B of the Act
preserved the powers of the High Court under Chapter XXIX CrPC while C
dealing with an appeal challenging conviction under the Act, and it must
be deemed to have preserved all the powers mentioned in Section 389 Cr PC
inclu,ding the power to suspend the sentence.
Dismissing the appeal, this Court
HELD : 1.1. When Section 36-B of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 is juxtaposed with Section 32-A of the
Act, the latter must dominate over the former namely for two reasons. First
D
is that Section 32-A overrides all the provisions of Cr PC, by specific terms,
through the non obstante limb incorporated therein. Second is that in view E
of the words "so far as may he" used in Section 36-B, the High Court can
exercise powers under Chapter XXIX CrPC only to the extent such powers
are applicable. [1161-B-C]
1.2. If the intention of Parliament in enacting Section 32-A of the Act
was only to curb the Government powers under Sections 432 and 433
~
CrPC, Parliament would, instead of using the present all-covering words
in the non-obstante clause, have employed the words "notwithstanding
anything contained in Chapter XXXII of the Code". Precision and brevity
F
are generally the hallmarks of legislative draftsmanship. That apart, if the
object of Section 32-A is to take away the power of the Government to G
suspend, remit or commute the sentence, the legislative exercise in enact-
ing the said provision is practically of futility because even without Section
_..
432 CrPC, the appropriate Government can suspend, remit or commute
sentence in exercise of the constitutional functions under Article 72 or 161.
[1161-G; 1161-E-F] H
1158
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1999] 1 S.C.R.
A
Marn Ram v. Union of India, AIR (1980) SC 2147 and Kehar Singh v.
B
Union of India, AIR (1989) SC 653, relied on.
2.1. In the "Statement of Objects and Reasons" no concern is shown
against the executive powers of remission or commutaExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.