BUDH SINGH versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR.

BUDH SINGH versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR.

Section 32A of the NDPS Act does not violate Articles 14, 20(1), or 21 of the Constitution. The exclusion of remission under Section 32A neither enlarges the period of incarceration nor increases the punishment for a convict beyond what was contemplated by the Act at the time of the offence. Remissions do not operate as reduction of judicially imposed sentences.

Parties
Petitioner: Budh Singh; Respondents: State of Haryana and Anr.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
11 March 2013
Procedural Posture
Writ Petition (criminal) No. 15 of 2012 / Final Judgment
Outcome
Writ petition dismissed
Legal Topics
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Remission of Sentences, Constitutional Validity, Article 20(1), Article 14, Article 21

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Budh Singh

Petitioner

State of Haryana and Anr.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Writ Petition (criminal) No. 15 of 2012 / Final Judgment

  1. 1 Whether Section 32A of the NDPS Act violates Articles 14, 20(1), and 21 of the Constitution
  2. 2 Whether exclusion of remission enlarges the period of incarceration beyond what was contemplated at the time of commission of the offence
  3. 3 Whether remission operates as reduction of sentence

Ratio Decidendi

Section 32A of the NDPS Act does not violate Articles 14, 20(1), or 21 of the Constitution. The exclusion of remission under Section 32A neither enlarges the period of incarceration nor increases the punishment for a convict beyond what was contemplated by the Act at the time of the offence. Remissions do not operate as reduction of judicially imposed sentences.

Court Disposition

Writ petition dismissed

Orders

  • Writ petition dismissed