Apex court upholds drug peddlers' discharge under changed law

New Delhi, July 3 : The Supreme Court has upheld the early discharge of two drug peddlers, caught 14 years ago with 100 gm heroin, saying the anti-narcotic law had changed since then and had less-stringent provisions.

A vacation bench of Justice B. Sudershan Reddy and Justice Aftab Alam upheld the discharge of Shah Alam and Mazzum Haq, who were caught in 1994 with the contraband. They were discharged by the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court in November 2002.

'The law as it stands today is vastly different from what it was in 1994 when the occurrence took place,' the bench said in its ruling last week.

The trial court on May 11, 2000, had convicted the duo and sentenced them to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment, besides a fine of Rs.100,000.

While upholding their discharge, the apex court noted that till their release by the high court in November 2002 the two had already served 8 years and 3 months of their 10-year jail term. They were not given bail either during trial or after conviction

while their appeal was being heard.

The apex court noted that when the two were arrested on Aug 5, 1994, the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, provided for a jail term of minimum 10 years and maximum 20 years for possessing 100 gm of heroin.

'The position was quite different in 1994. At that time, the possession of narcotic drug in excess of small quantity for personal consumption (5 milligrams, in case of heroin) attracted the punishment of rigorous imprisonment for a minimum period of ten years as well as fine of not less than rupees one lakh,' the apex court observed.

It, however, took into account the 2001 amendment to the NDPS Act, which reduced the sentence to a maximum of 10 years.

'The law as it stands today is vastly different from what it was in 1994 when the occurrence took place. Now, 100 grams of heroin is an intermediate quantity between 'small quantity' and 'commercial quantity' after the amendment of the Act with effect from Oct 2, 2001,' the court said.

Senior lawyers, however, point out that legal principles envisage trial and punishment to a criminal as per provisions of the law as it existed on the date of the crime committed.

It is because of this that people once charged under anti-terror laws TADA and POTA (Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (prevention) Act and Prevention of Terrorism Act) continue to face prosecution as per provisions of the laws, which have already been repealed, lawyers note.