2004 (2) TMI 555 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether this segregation of cases pending in appeal and their exclusion from the application of the beneficial effects of the amending Act infringes the equality right guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution? Held that - We are of the view that the proviso to Section 41(1) of the Amending Act 9 of 2001 is constitutional and is not hit by Article 14. Consequently in all cases in which the trials had concluded and appeals were pending on 2-10-2001 when Amending Act 9 of 2001 came into force the amendments introduced by the Amending Act 9 of 2001 would not be applicable and they would have to be disposed off in accordance with the NDPS Act 1985 as it stood before 2nd October 2001. Since there are other contentions of law and fact raised in each of these cases they would have to be placed before the appropriate Benches for decision and disposal in accordance with the law.

Issues Involved:
1. Constitutional validity of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 41 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Amendment) Act, 2001.
2. Retrospective application of the amended provisions.
3. Alleged violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.
4. Classification of pending cases and appeals.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Constitutional Validity of the Proviso to Section 41(1):
The Supreme Court examined the constitutional validity of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 41 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Amendment) Act, 2001. The proviso excludes cases pending in appeal from the benefit of the rationalised sentencing structure introduced by the amendment.

2. Retrospective Application of the Amended Provisions:
The NDPS Act, 1985, was amended by Act 9 of 2001 to rationalise the punishment structure by linking sentences to the quantity of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances involved. Section 41(1) of the Amending Act declared that the amended provisions would apply retrospectively to all cases pending before the courts or under investigation as of 2nd October 2001. However, the proviso excluded cases pending in appeal from this benefit.

3. Alleged Violation of Article 14:
The appellants argued that the proviso to Section 41(1) was unreasonable and violative of the equality right guaranteed by Article 14 of the Constitution, resulting in hostile discrimination. They contended that there was no rational basis for differentiating between cases pending before the courts and those pending in appeal, as an appeal is a continuation of the trial.

4. Classification of Pending Cases and Appeals:
The Court noted that the classification made by the legislature was based on three categories: cases pending before the trial courts, cases pending investigation, and cases where trials had concluded and were pending in appeal. The Court held that this classification was rational and based on intelligible differentia with a rational nexus to the objectives of the amending Act.

Judgment:
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the proviso to Section 41(1) of the Amending Act, 2001. The Court reasoned that applying the amended provisions to cases where trials had concluded and appeals were pending could result in retrials, defeating the objective of avoiding delays in trials. The classification was found to be rational and not violative of Article 14.

The Court overruled the judgments of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which had declared the proviso unconstitutional. The Court emphasized that the retrospective application of the mollifying provisions of the Act was permissible and not hit by Article 20(1) of the Constitution.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the proviso to Section 41(1) of the Amending Act, 2001, was constitutional and not hit by Article 14. Consequently, cases where trials had concluded and appeals were pending on 2nd October 2001 would be disposed of in accordance with the NDPS Act, 1985, as it stood before the amendment. The appeals were disposed of accordingly, with specific cases being placed before the appropriate Bench for further decision and disposal in accordance with the law.

← Previous Next →