Crl.A. 112 o f 2011 1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 112 OF 2011

STATE OF PUNJAB ..... APPELLANT

VERSUS

PIARA SINGH ..... RESPONDENT

O R D E R

1. This appeal by way of special leave is directed  

against the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High  

Court dated 17th July, 2007 whereby the High Court has  

held that poppy husk which was 26 kilograms in weight,  

had been recovered from the respondent-accused was a  

small quantity in terms of the Notification dated 2nd  

October, 2001 and as such the sentence of ten years  

which  had  been  awarded  to  the  respondent  for  the  

offence  under  Section  15  of  the  Narcotic  Drugs  and  

Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 should be reduced to  

that already undergone i.e. two years.  The only point  

raised by the learned counsel for the State of Punjab

Crl.A. 112 o f 2011 2

is that the aforesaid amendment would not be applicable  

to appeals that were pending in the High Court and as  

such the judgment of the High Court was erroneous  on  

this score.  We see that the judgment of the trial  

court convicting the respondent and sentencing him as  

already indicated above was of the 15th of February,  

2001 and that the High Court rendered its judgment on  

the 17th of July, 2007.   It appears to us that the  

issue has been settled by this Court in  Basheer V.  

State of Kerala (2004) 3 SCC 609 [para 28] wherein it  

has been observed as under:

“28. In the result, 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 2.102001. 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.”

2. As the Hon'ble Judge of the High Court appears  

to have been oblivious of this judgment, we are of the  

opinion that this matter needs to be remanded for a re-

look  on  all  issues  to  the  High  Court,  more

Crl.A. 112 o f 2011 3

particularly, as the respondent, though served, has not  

put in appearance.   

3. The appeal is allowed and the matter is remanded  

to the High Court for decision afresh in accordance  

with law.

   ..................J     [HARJIT SINGH BEDI]

  ..................J     [GYAN SUDHA MISRA]

NEW DELHI AUGUST 10, 2011.