9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (10) TMI 670X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as follows: A complaint was filed under Section 8 of the Act alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 20(b)(i) of the Act on 21.9.2001. The un-amended provision reads as follows: 20. Punishment for contravention in relation to Cannabis plant and Cannabis--------------------- Whoever, in contravention of any provision of this Act or any rule or order made or condition of licence granted thereunder: (b) Produces, manufactures, possesses, sells, purchases, transports, imports inter-state, exports inter-state or uses cannabis, shall be punishable------ (i) Where such contravention relates to Ganja or the cultivation of Cannabis Plant, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... judgment, impose a fine exceeding two lakh rupees. The High Court was of the view that a new offence was made out because a higher punishment was imposed. Stand of the appellant is that no new offence was created but what was provided for related to more stringent sentence. It is, therefore, submitted that the High Court was not justified in holding that the new offence was committed. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent supported the judgment of the High Court. 4. In order to appreciate the stand of the learned counsel for the appellant a reference to Article 20 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the Constitution ) reads as follows: Protection in respect of conviction for offences. (1) No person shall be con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion is permissible for escalating the severity of the punishment. But if any subsequent legislation down grades the harshness of the sentence for the same offence, it would be salutary principal for administration of criminal justice to suggest that the said legislative benevolence can be extended to the accused who awaits judicial verdict regarding sentence. The view expressed in Gyan Singh s case (supra) finds support from the case of T. Barai v. Henry Ah Hoe Anr. [1983 (1) SCR 905]. The High Court was not justified in holding that new offence was created. Before the amendment as well as after the amendment the ingredients of Section 8 remain same and there was no amendment in this provision. Only punishment for contravention in relatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
