9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1999 (3) TMI 592 - SC - Indian LawsCan the sentence passed on a convicted person under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 be suspended during the pendency of appeal presented by him? Held that - The upshot of the all discussion is that Section 32A of the Act has taken away the powers of the court to suspend a sentence passed on persons convicted of offences under the Act (except Section 27) either during pendency of any appeal or otherwise. Similarly the power of the Government under Section 432 433 and 434 of the Criminal Procedure Code have also been taken away. Section 32A would have an overriding effect with regard to the powers of suspension commutation and remission provided under the Criminal Procedure Code. the appellant has voiced a concern that if High Courts have no power to suspend sentence under any contingency its consequence is that long duration of pendency of appeals would result in serious miscarriage of justice in many cases. We are aware of such hard consequences which might erupt. The solution to such problems can be worked out by Parliament. Till then the High Courts should direct the Registry to board appeals under the Act on a priority basis and dispose them of as early as possible. As a temporary measure to lessen the problem we direct the Registry of each High Court to include every appeal (against conviction of offences under the Act) in the hearing list as soon as such appeal becomes ripe for hearing.
Issues Involved:
1. Suspension of sentence under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) during the pendency of an appeal. 2. Interpretation and application of Section 32A of the NDPS Act. 3. Interaction between Section 32A and Section 36B of the NDPS Act. 4. Legislative intent behind Section 32A. 5. Judicial precedents and conflicting High Court decisions on the issue. Detailed Analysis: 1. Suspension of Sentence Under NDPS Act During Pendency of Appeal: The primary issue is whether a sentence passed on a convicted person under the NDPS Act can be suspended during the pendency of an appeal. The appellant's request for suspension of the sentence was denied by the High Court, prompting the appeal to the Supreme Court. 2. Interpretation and Application of Section 32A of the NDPS Act: Section 32A of the NDPS Act explicitly prohibits the suspension, remission, or commutation of any sentence awarded under the Act, except for offenses under Section 27. The Supreme Court emphasized that the non-obstante clause in Section 32A overrides any provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Code) or any other law, thereby reinforcing the prohibition on suspension of sentences. 3. Interaction Between Section 32A and Section 36B of the NDPS Act: Section 36B allows the High Court to exercise powers conferred by Chapters XXIX and XXX of the Code, which include the power to suspend sentences under Section 389 of the Code. However, the Supreme Court clarified that Section 32A must dominate over Section 36B due to the non-obstante clause, meaning the High Court's powers under Chapter XXIX of the Code are limited to the extent they do not conflict with Section 32A. 4. Legislative Intent Behind Section 32A: The Court examined the legislative intent behind Section 32A, noting that it aimed to strengthen the NDPS Act by preventing drug offenders from being released on technical grounds. The Statement of Objects and Reasons for the 1989 amendment highlighted the need to ensure that no sentence under the Act is suspended, remitted, or commuted. The Court rejected the argument that Section 32A was only intended to curb the executive powers of the Government under Sections 432 and 433 of the Code. 5. Judicial Precedents and Conflicting High Court Decisions: The Supreme Court reviewed various High Court decisions on the issue. A Full Bench of the Kerala High Court in Berlin Joseph @ Ravi vs. State and other High Courts had held that Section 32A curtails the court's power to suspend sentences. However, the Delhi High Court and the Gujarat High Court had divergent views, with the latter arguing that Section 36B preserved the High Court's powers under Chapter XXIX of the Code. The Supreme Court found the premises of the Gujarat High Court's decision to be faulty, particularly the interpretation of the word "award" and the assumption that trial courts retained the power to suspend sentences under Section 26 of the Act. Conclusion: The Supreme Court concluded that Section 32A of the NDPS Act unequivocally removes the powers of the court to suspend sentences for offenses under the Act (except Section 27) during the pendency of an appeal or otherwise. This includes the powers of the Government under Sections 432, 433, and 434 of the Code. The Court acknowledged the potential for hardship due to prolonged appeal processes and directed High Courts to prioritize appeals under the NDPS Act to mitigate such issues. Disposition: The appeal was disposed of with the direction that High Courts should prioritize and expedite the hearing of appeals involving convictions under the NDPS Act.
|
