No suspension, remission or commutation in any sentence awarded under this Act

Related judgements & precedents

These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.

1. Dadu @ Tulsidas vs State of Maharashtra

   Supreme Court of India 12 Oct 2000 Binding (Supreme Court)

   Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

   Section 32A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 is unconstitutional insofar as it takes away the power of the appellate court to suspend sentences awarded to convicts under the Act, because such complete prohibition renders the substantive right of appeal illusory and violates Article 21 of the Constitution. However, Section 32A remains valid insofar as it restricts the Executive's power to suspend, remit or commute sentences under Sections 432 and 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as this restriction is for a reasonable purpose of combating drug trafficking and does not violate Article 14 of the Constitution. A sentence awarded under the Act can be suspended by the appellate court only and strictly subject to the conditions spelt out in Section 37 of the Act, which requires reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

   On this section: The core provision under challenge, which prohibits suspension, remission or commutation of sentences awarded under the Act (except Section 27). The Court held this provision unconstitutional insofar as it takes away the court's power to suspend sentences, but valid insofar as it restricts Executive powers.

   Read the full order on eCourts India

2. Maktool Singh vs State of Punjab

   Supreme Court of India 17 Mar 2000 Binding (SC)

   Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

   Section 32A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, which prohibits suspension, remission or commutation of sentences under the Act (except Section 27), has an overriding effect and applies to all courts, including the High Court, and therefore the High Court cannot suspend sentences passed on persons convicted of NDPS offences (except Section 27) at any stage, including during the pendency of appeal. The non obstante clause in Section 32A makes it clear that this prohibition operates despite any provision in the Criminal Procedure Code or any other law. Section 36B of the NDPS Act, which preserves High Court powers under Chapter XXIX of the CrPC, is subject to the phrase 'so far as may be applicable', which limits the applicability of CrPC provisions to the extent they are not interdicted by Section 32A.

   On this section: The Court held that Section 32A, which prohibits suspension, remission or commutation of sentences under the Act (except Section 27), has an overriding effect and applies to all courts including the High Court. The non obstante clause makes it clear that this prohibition operates despite any provision in the Criminal Procedure Code or any other law.

   Read the full order on eCourts India

The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.