HARI OM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment dated 11th December, 2000 whereby appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 18 of NDPS Act for being found in possession of 1 k.g. of opium and the order of sentence dated 13th December, 2000 whereby he was awarded 10 years Rl and a fine of Rs.1 lakh and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years.

(2.) Admittedly appellant was arrested on 21.7.1999 and since then he is in jail and serving sentence. Learned counsel for the appellant Mr.Sumeet Verma has fairly conceded that conviction be maintained but has confined his arguments on the quantum of sentence. Mr. Verma seeks to avail benefit of amended provisions of Section 18 of NDPS Act which provides that if a person is found to be in possession of a small quantity, he can be visited with sentence for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees or with both. He further contends that it is only in a case where the quantity is a commercial quantity that the minimum sentence of 10 years which is extendable to 20 years and fine of Rs.1 lakh which is extendable to 2 lakh which is awardable. In any other case the sentence can be extended to ten years with fine which may extend to Rs.one lakh. The amended provisions need to be reproduced. It reads as under:-

(3.) Mr.Anil Soni, learned APP contends that since this provision came into existence in October, 2001 whereas the offence was committed in the year 1999, the benefit of it is not extendable to the appellant. On the contrary, Mr. Verma contends that benefit of amended provisions has to be extended to all those cases where appeals are pending and this court has taken a consistent view that the appeal is a continuation of trial and therefore advantage of amended provision has to be given to the accused. There is force in the argument of Mr.Verma.