NDPS Amendment 2001: Proviso Denying Lighter Sentences to Pending Appeals Is Valid, Supreme Court Holds

In this group of appeals, the accused had been convicted under the NDPS Act, 1985 and given the then minimum of ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs one lakh; their appeals were pending in the High Courts on 2 October 2001, when Act 9 of 2001 came into force (para 2). The amendment introduced 'small' and 'commercial' quantities and graded sentences (paras 4-5). Section 41(1) applied the amended Act to pending trials and investigations, but its proviso excluded cases pending in appeal (paras 6-7). The appellants contended that an appeal continues the trial, so the proviso breached Article 14, relying on High Court rulings that had struck it down (paras 8-9).

The Court accepted that a law which only mollifies punishment may apply retrospectively without offending Article 20(1), relying on Ratan Lal and T. Barai (paras 10-12). But Parliament had expressly withheld that benefit from cases pending in appeal, so the real question was Article 14 (para 13). Applying Nallamilli Rami Reddy, it held that a classification need not be mathematically precise, and fortuitous hardship to some does not invalidate it (paras 18-20). The amendment had two aims: avoiding delay in trials and rationalising sentences (para 21). Because the 2001 Act changed provisions affecting the trial itself, applying it to concluded trials could let convicts claim their trials were vitiated and seek retrials, defeating the first aim (para 22). "Thus, in our view, the Rubicon indicated by Parliament is the conclusion of the Trial and pendency of appeal" (para 23). A trial concluded before 2 October 2001 with an appeal filed afterwards would get the benefit, but that anomaly does not attract Article 14 (para 23). The High Court rulings were overruled; Gian Singh, Ratan Lal and T. Barai were of no avail, and the speedy-trial principle in Akhtari Bi supports the law (paras 24-25).