- (1.) Jagsir Singh present appellant was nominated as an accused in case FIR No.307 dated 9.9.1998 registered at Police Station Kalanwali under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter to be referred as, 'the Act'). As per prosecution case, 15 Kgs. of poppy straw was recovered from the appellant.
(2.) Mr.Rahul Vats, learned counsel appearing for the appellant at the out set has stated that he will not assail the recovery and conviction of the appellant. However, he states that in view of the law laid down in Basheer @ N.P.Basheer v. State of Kerala, 2004 1 RCR(Cri) 1008, the quantity recovered is to be treated as a non-commercial quantity and the appellant is to be sentenced under Section 15(B) of the Act. In the present case, the appellant was convicted by the trial Court on 3.10.2001. On 9.10.2001, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.One lac. In default thereof, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two years. In Basheer @ N.P.Basheer's case it has been held as under:- "23. Thus, in our view, the Rubicon indicated by parliament is the conclusion of the Trial and pendency of appeal. In the cases of pending trials, and cases pending investigation, the trial is yet to conclude; hence, the retrospective mollification of the rigour of punishment has been made applicable. In the cases where the trials are concluded and appeals are pending, the application of the amended Act appears to have been excluded so as to preclude the possible contingency of reopening concluded trials. In our judgment, the classification is very much rational and based on clearly intelligible differentia, which has rational nexus with one of the objectives to be achieved by the classification. There is one exceptional situation, however, which may produce an anomalous result. If the trial had just concluded before 2.10.2001, but the appeal is filed after 2.10.2001, it cannot be said that the appeal was pending as on the date of the coming into force of the Amending Act, and the amendment would be applicable even in such cases. The observations of this Court in Nallamilli's case would apply to such a case. The possibility of such a fortuitous case would not be strong enough reason to attract the wrath of Article 14 and is constitutional consequences. Hence, we are unable to accept the contention that the proviso to Section 41 of the amending Act is hit by Article 14."
(3.) Admittedly, in the present case, the appeal was filed after 9.10.2001 when the appellant was sentenced. Mr.Rahul Vats, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has stated that the appellant has preferred this appeal through Jail and subsequently on the application filed by the appellant and the orders passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, the record of the appeal was reconstructed.;