JAGDEO DAS Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this case a somewhat unusual question has arisen for consideration in the following background: One Jagdeo Das was tried by the Sessions Judge, Darbhanga in Sessions trial No. 40 of 1989 on three heads of charge, one relating to offence punishable under Section 20(b)(i), second punishable under Section 23 and third punishable under Section 25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act for short) and he was found guilty of all the three offences. He was also charged of the offence punishable under Section 47(a) of the Excise Act but that the learned Sessions Judge had held that there is no necessity for convicting him of that offence and we are not concerned with that offence. Learned Sessions Judge passed sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 5 years for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(i) of the NDPS Act, 10 years for the offence punishable under Section 23 and for the same period (of 10 years) for the offence punishable under Section 25 of the NDPS Act, with a direction that all the sentence shall run concurrently.

(2.) JAGDEO Das, the convict, preferred the appeal (Criminal Appeal No. 107 of 1992), which was disposed of by an order, dated 20th September, 1993, by a Single' Bench of this Court. The operative part of the order passed in this appeal are contained in Paragraphs 9 and 10 of the judgment, which read as follows: 9. For the reasons above this appeal is partly allowed. Conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 25 of the Act are set aside, and while sustaining his conviction under Section 20(b)(i) of the Act, his sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 10. The appellant was caught red handed while committing the crime in December, 1985. He is still in jail. His sentence under Section 20(b)(i) of the Act having been ordered to be reduced to the period already undergone by him, he is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required to be detained in connection with any other case.

(3.) WHEN the letter of the Sessions Judge was placed before a Single Bench for orders, it was referred to a Division Bench for consideration of the question as to 'whether the appeal has to be heard afresh with regard to the conviction under Section 23 of the aforesaid Act and sentence passed in regard thereto or the same has to be treated to be set aside in view of the direction to release the appellant forthwith, if not wanted in any other case'.