STATE OF DELHI versus JITTI

Citation: [2007] 11 S.C.R. 133 · Decided: 12-10-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.K. THAKKER · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
) 
STATE OF DELHI 
V. 
nm 
OCTOBER 12, 2007 
[C.K. THAKKER AND AL TAMAS KABIR, JJ.] 
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985: 
A 
B 
ss.18 & 41(As amended in 2001)-Accusedfoundinpossession C 
of 45 kgs of poppy straw powder-Conviction by Trial Court with 
purported minimum punishment of RI for 10 years-Accused filed 
appeal-Meanwhile s.41 amended-Relying on amended s. 41, accused 
challenged quantum of sentence imposed-He contended that 
minimum punishment was RI for 10 years only in respect of recovery 
of 'commercial quantity' but quantity recovered from accused being D 
less than 50 Kgs was not 'commercial quantity'-High Court ordered 
release of accused by restricting his sentence to the period already 
undergone-Supreme Court granted interim stay of operation of the 
judgment-Accused again arrested-Supreme Court, however, ordered 
his release on bail on his furnishing self bond with two sureties- E 
Accused unable to furnish surety, hence not released-Accused in jail 
for last about 10 years-Question raised by State before Supreme Court 
over applicability of amended s. 41 to cases pending in appeal-Held: 
No final opinion expressed on the question-On facts and in interest 
ofjustice, accused acquitted as he had already undergone sentence of F 
almost 10 years. 
Respondent was found in possession of 45 kgs of poppy straw 
powder. Trial Court convicted him under s.18 of the Narcotic Drugs 
and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and sentenced him to suffer G 
minimum punishment of RI for 10 years. 
Respondent filed appeal before High Court. Meanw~ile Section 
41 of the Act was amended. Relying on the amended Section 41, 
133 
H 
134 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 11 S.C.R. 
A Respondent challenged the quantum of sentence imposed. He 
~ 
contended that minimum punishment of RI was for 10 years only in 
respect of recovery of 'commercial quantity' but the quantity 
recovered from Respondent being less than 50 Kgs was not 
'commercial quantity'. High Court ordered r:elease of Respondent 
B by restricting his sentence to the period already undergone. 
Aggrieved State approached this Court which granted interim 
stay of the operation of th~ judgment. Respondent was again 
;-
arrested. This Court, however, ordered Respondent to be released 
on bail on his furnishing self bond of Rupees One lakh with two 
C sureties. Respondent could not furnish surety and therefore was not 
released. He is in the jail for the last about 10 years. 
It was submitted by the State that the High Court was no~ right 
in applying Section 41 of the Act [as amended in 2001 J to the present 
D case since proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 41 explicitly and 
expressly states that it will not apply to cases pending in appeal. 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
HELD: Taking into account the totality of facts and 
E circumstances and factual scenario, namely, that the respondent-
accused is in jail since about ten years, the High Court partly allowed 
his appeal and ordered to release him, the present appeal challenging 
the said decision is filed by the State, the respondent could not be 
released on bail as he was unable to furnish sureties, ends of justice 
F would be met if without expressing final opinion on the question of 
law raised before this Court, the appeals are disposed of with the 
observation that since the respondent had undergone sentence of 
almost ten years, he should be set at liberty unless he is required in 
any other offence. [Para 14) [139-E-FJ 
G 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal Nos. 
1244-1245 of 2003. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 8.4.2002 of the High Court 
-~ 
of Delhi at New Delhi in Crl. A. Nos. 111and47of1999. 
H 
ST A TE v. JITTI [C.K. THAKKER, J.] 
135 
Ashok Bhan, Varuna Bhandari Gugnani and D.S. Mahra for the A 
Appellant. 
Binay Kumar Das (A.C.) for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
C.K. THAKKER, J. 1. Both these appeals are filed by the State B 
of Delhi against judgment and order passed by the High Court of Delhi in 
Criminal Appeal Nos. 111 and 47of1999. By the said order, the High 
Court confirmed an order of conviction recorded by the Additional 
Sessions Judge, Delhi in Sessions Case No. 98 of 1996 dated October 
14/0ctober 21, 1998, but restricted the sentence to the period already C 
undergone by the convict. 
2. Short facts of the case are that Didar Singh, Circle Inspector along 
with Constable Ram Karan was on patrolling duty on Sep

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.