EBENEZER ADEBAD Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition, alongwith other companion petitions, petitioners are accused under the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic substances Act, 1985 and are convicted under the said Act for the offences committed by them prior to 29.5.1989. By Act 2 of 1989 section 32A was inserted in the NDPS Act, 1985 which inter-alia provided that no sentence awarded under the said Act (other than section 27) shall be suspended or remitted or commuted. The aforesaid section 32A came into force on 29th May 1989. Section 32A reads as under:-

(2.) THE petitioners contended in the petition that prior to the aforesaid amendment they were getting benefit under the remission system, whereby their actual sentence used to be remitted as per the Chapter 28 - Remission System. The petitioners contended that after insertion of section 32A by the amendment of 29th May 1989, the convicts convicted under the NDPS Act are not entitled to get the remission. However, according to the petitioners the said section 32A is not applicable to the convicts like the petitioners who were convicted under NDPS Act for the offence committed by them prior to 29.5.1989. According to them the privilege existing at the time of commission of offence including privilege of earning or shortening of sentence by good behaviour or remission cannot be taken away by the subsequent statute.

(3.) MR . Khaire learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the right of getting remission conferred upon them cannot be divesged by the subsequent legislation. Mr. Khaire to lend support to his argument relied upon certain observations made by the Supreme Court in Maru Ram vs. Union of India AIR 1980 SC 2147. In the aforesaid case section 433A of Criminal Procedure Code was challenged. While dealing with aforesaid case the Supreme Court by referring to the observations made in Cooley's Constitutional Limitations Vol-I, 8th Edn. p. 544 observed to the effect that 'privilege existing at the time of commission of offence (e.g. privilege of earning a shortening of sentence by good behaviour) cannot be taken away by subsequent statute.' After referring to the aforesaid observations the Supreme Court made certain observations more particularly in paras 55 and 56 of the said decision which are as under :-