9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Challenge to judgment quashing charges under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act and directing framing of charges under Section 20(b)(i) of the Act.
Judgment Summary: Issue 1: Interpretation of NDPS Act provisions The High Court quashed charges under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act and directed framing of charges under Section 20(b)(i) of the Act. The appellant argued that no new offence was created by the Amendment Act, but a more stringent sentence was provided. The High Court's view was that a new offence was made out due to the higher punishment imposed. However, it was held that no new offence was created by the Amendment Act, and the punishment cannot exceed what was originally provided for. Issue 2: Constitutional implications Article 20(1) of the Constitution prohibits creating an offence retrospectively and ensures that the penalty may not be higher than what was prescribed at the time of the offence. The validity of the Amendment Act was upheld previously, stating that pending cases should be disposed of according to the amended provisions. It was emphasized that no ex-post facto legislation is permissible for increasing the severity of punishment, but legislative benevolence can reduce the sentence for the same offence. The High Court's decision was deemed unjustified as there was no creation of a new offence, only an amendment to the punishment under Section 20 of the Act. Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed with the clarification that no new offence was created by the Amendment Act, and the punishment cannot exceed what was originally provided for. The High Court's decision to quash charges under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) and direct framing of charges under Section 20(b)(i) was upheld.
|
