LexTHE SUPERINTENDENT, NARCOTIC CONTROL BUREAU versus PARASH SINGH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 14 S.C.R. 474
A
THE SUPERINTENDENT, NARCOTIC CONTROL BUREAU 1--
v.
B
PARASH SINGH
(Criminal Appeal No. 972 of 2003)
OCTOBER 15, 2008
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM
SHARMA, JJ.]
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
c - ss.8, 20(b)(i) ahd 20(b)(ii)(C) - Complaint made under s.8
alleging commission of offence under s.20(b)(i) - Meanwhile,
Amendment Act, 2001 introduced changes in s.20- Charges
framed under s.20(b)(ii)(C) (as amended) - Quashing of, by
High Court on ground that new offence was created as greater
0 punishment was imposed and direction to trial court to frame
charges under s.20(b)(i) - Correctness of- Held: Not correct
- Before and after amendment, the ingredients of s. 8 remained
the same - It did not create an offence retrospectively - Only -+--
punishment for contravention in relation to cannabis plant and
cannabis was amended - Thus no new offence was created
E by the Amendment Act - But at the same time no punishment
greater than what was originally provided for could be. imposed
on the accused - Constitution of India, 1950 -Article 20(1) -
Administration of Criminal Justice - Legislation - Amendment
F
of statute providing greater penalty - Sentence.
On 21.9.2001, a complaint was filed under s.8 of the ~
NDPS Act, 1985 alleging commission of offence punish-
able under s.20(b)(i) of the Act. Meanwhile the Act was
amended and charges were framed under s.20(b)(ii)(C) as
G inserted by the NDPS (Amendment) Act, 2001. The High
Court quashed the charges and directed trial court to
frame charges under s.20(b)(i). It was of the view that a
new offence was made out because a greater punishment ~
was imposed.
H
474
THE SUPERINTENDENT, N. C. BUREAU v.
475
PARASH SINGH
In the instant appeal, it was contended for the appel-
A
lant that no new offence was created but what was pro-
vided for related to more stringent sentence.
..
Dismissing the appeal with certain clarifications, the
'
Court
B
,
HELD: 1.1. It is manifest from Article 20(1) of the Con-
.-...;·
stitution of India that it prohibits (1) making an Act for the
first time and then making that law retrospective and (2)
the imposition of the penalty may not be higher than what
is prescribed in law which was in force at the time of the c
commission of the offence. The validity of NDPS (Amend-
ment) Act, 2001 was upheld by this Court. The Court held
that (a) all cases pending before Courts on 2.10.2001 and
(b) all cases under investigation as on that date would be
""'
disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the Act D
as amended by the Amending Act. [Para 5] [478-E]
-+
1.2. Before the amendment as well as thereafter, the
•,
ingredients of s.8 of NDPS Act, 1985 remained the same
and there was no amendment in this provision. Only the
provision imposing punishment for contravention in re-
E
lation to cannabis plant and cannabis, i.e. s.20 of the Act
has been amended by the Amendment Act. Thus, no new
offence was created by the Amendment Act. But at the
same time no punishment higher than what was originally
provided for can be imposed on the accused. [Paras 5, 6]
F
-1
[479-C-D]
Basheer@ N.P Basheer v. State of Kera/a (2004) 3 SCC
609; State through CBI Delhi v. Gian Singh (1999) 9 SCC 312;
T. Barai v. Henry Ah Hoe & Anr. (1983) 1 SCR 905 - referred to.
CASE LAW REFERENCE
G
,J('
(2004) 3 sec 609
referred to
Para 5
(1999) 9 sec 312
referred to
Para 5
...
(1983) 1 SCR 905
referred to
Para 5
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
476
I
1".
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 14 S.C.R.
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 972 of 2003_
From the final Judgment and Order dated 27.3.2002 of
the High Court of Calcutta in C.R.R. No. 514 of 2002
8.8. Singh, Binu Tamta, Kumar Rajesh Singh, Manoj
Dwivedi and Sushma Suri for the Appellant.
Arjun Narayan Deo and 8albir Singh Gupta for the Re-
spondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to
the judgment of the Calcutta High Court quashing charges framed
under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psycho-
tropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short the 'NDPS Act') as
amended by Act 9 of 2001. The High Court directed ·the trial
court to ffame charges under Section 20(b) (i) of the Act.
2. The background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
A complaint was filed under Section 8 of the Act alleging
commission of offence punishable uExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.