LAW FOR ALL

constitutional validity of Section 32A of the NDPS Act, - The petitioner, on the date of the filing of the present writ petition, had undergone custody for a period of more than 7 years. He contends that taking into account the remissions which would have been due to him under different Government Notifications/Orders issued from time to time he would have been entitled to be released from prison. However, by virtue of the provisions of Section 32A of the NDPS Act, the benefit of such remissions have been denied to him resulting in his continued custody. Consequently, by means of this writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, he has challenged the constitutional validity of Section 32A of the NDPS Act, inter-alia, on the ground that the said provision violates the fundamental rights of the petitioner under Articles 14, 20(1) and 21 of the Constitution. = whether the order of remission has the effect of reducing the sentence in the same way in which an order of an appellate or revisional criminal court has the effect of reducing the sentence passed by the trial court to the extent indicated in the order of the appellate or revisional court.”= On a detailed examination and scrutiny of the various dimensions of the question that had arisen, this Court upheld the view taken by the High Court and answered the question formulated by it by holding that “….the effect of an order of remission is to wipe out that part of the sentence of imprisonment which has not been served out and thus in practice to reduce the sentence to the period already undergone, in law the order of remission merely means that the rest of the sentence need not be undergone, leaving the order of conviction by the court and the sentence passed by it untouched.” - this Court had observed that Article 20(1) of the constitution engrafts the rule that there can be no ex post facto infliction of a penalty heavier than what had prevailed at the time of commission of the offence. Section 32A ex facie has nothing to do with the punishment or penalty imposed under the Act. In fact, no change or alteration in the severity of the penalty under the NDPS Act has been brought about by the introduction of Section 32A with effect from 29.05.1989. What Section 32A has done is to obliterate the benefit of remission(s) that a convict under the NDPS Act would have normally earned. But, if the correct legal position is that the remission(s) do not in any way touch or affect the penalty/sentence imposed by a Court, we do not see how the exclusion of benefit of remission can be understood to have the effect of enlarging the period of incarceration of an accused convicted under the NDPS Act or as to how the said provision, i.e., Section 32A, can have the effect of making a convict undergo a longer period of sentence than what the Act had contemplated at the time of commission of the offence. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, we find no substance in the challenge to the provisions of Section 32A of the NDPS Act. This writ petition, therefore, has to fail and is accordingly dismissed.