Court on Its Own Motion v. State

1. on a Letter Petition received the instant writ petition has been registered on the courls own motion'

2. The issue arising for consideration would be whether those who are convicted under The Narcotics Drug s and Psychotropic Substances Ac t, 19g[5] would be entitled to the benefit of remission of the sentence imposed.

3. Notwithstanding section 32-A of The Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 creating an embargo for the grant of a remission and notwithstanding that The Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 is a central Act, the Punjab & Haryana High Court granted benefit of remission in the teeth of the decision of the Supreme Court reported as AIR Ig74 SC 3 | G.V.Ramaiaiah Vs. Superintendent C entr al Jail Rqi ahmund\v.

4. Granting Special Leave to Appeal in SLP (Crl.) No.2a96l2006 against the decision of the Punjab &:Fraryana High Court, we find that the Supreme W.P.(Crl.) No.54712009 { Page I of[2] 2013:DHC:7638-DB \ Court disposed of the said petition without adjudicating on the subject leaving the question of law oPen'

5. From the Letter Petition it would be evident that the writer of the letter would have served out his sentence as of today.

6. Hearing of the writ petition was adjourned sine die on July 08, 2009 to await the decision from the Supreme court in sLP (crl.) No'249612006. which we find has been disposed of as infructuous by the Supreme Court on August 27,2010.

7. We dispose of the writ petition as infructuous leaving the question of law oPen. N^"^)