ORDER Mohan, J. - The Special Leave Petition is directed against the order made in Crl. Misc. Petition No. 328 of 1988 before the High Court of Kerala. The respondent herein filed the said Crl. Mise. Petition against the officers of Cannonore Town Police and others alleging criminal assault on his printing press. In that petition he sought a direction to investigate into the matter by an impartial agency. 2. The short facts are Maniyeri madhavan is a journalist and is the editor of newspaper by name Sudinam Evening Daily. He complained of an attack on person and property at the instance of the police officers of the State. The High Court in a writ petition filed by him considered it necessary that the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Northern Range, be directed to look into the complaint of the petitioner making a representation in that behalf. He approached this Court praying for an investigation by the CHI. This court did not give the direction. However, a direction was given that instead of the Deputy Inspector General, Northern Range, Mr. M.G.A. Raman, Deputy Inspector General of Police, Central Range, would supervise the investigation it was also directed that a case be registered on the basis of the representation submitted by the petitioner to Mr. Raman and the investigation be completed within a period of two months from the date of the receipt of such representation. Pursuant to this order, the representation was made to Mr. Raman by the petitioner. Mr. Raman did not complete the investigation within the time frame. On 11.3.1991 the Government of Kerala filed an application seeking extention of time and certain directions consequent upon Mr. Ran1an ceasing to be incharge of the investigation. At this stage, the petitioner moved this court on 13.3.1992 praying that the earlier order entrusting the investigation to the State police be withdrawn and the matter be investigated by the C.B.I. On 3.9.1992 this Court directed the Home Secretary to the an affidavit mentioning the stage of the investigation and also to specify the names of officers of the rank of Inspectors General of Police who could be entrusted with the investigation, if need arose. The Home Secretary ignored the order. He asked the Under Secretary to file on affidavit. The Home Secretary ignored the order. He asked the Under Secretary to file on affidavit. This Court took serious notice of this and passed the following order: "We are afraid, in this case the concerned officers of the state seem to manifest a disturbing degree of indifference. We take serious note of these lapses. Apart from considering as to which agency should now investigate this serious offences alleged against the State Police by a journalist, we would also like the state government to explain why Mr. Raman who was in the midst of the investigation, was relieved and sent on deputation without the orders of this Court. In the meanwhile the principal accused, the Superintendent of Police has been elevated as a Deputy Inspector General of Police. Mr. Raman himself will have to explain as to why he did not complete the investigation in time: allowed time to lapse - and according to the petitioner of allowing evidence to be lost with ulterior motives - and abandon the supersivision of the investigation. These lapse in the investigation seem to lend credence to the grievance of the petitioner that Mr. Raman himself, being a State Police Officer, has not been able to distance himself from the interests of these accused of highhandedness against the petitioner. The Home Secretary will explain why he did not obey the orders of this Court dated 3.9.1992 which expressly directed him to file an affidavit. We direct the Home Secretary, State of Kerala Mr. Raman the then Deputy Inspector General, of Police (now working as the Vigilance officer of the Hotel Corporation of India) and the Chief Secretary representing the State, to show-cause why action should not be taken against them for the lapses and omissions in obeying the orders of this Court. The home Secretary as also Mr. Raman will appear personally before this Court while the Chief Secretary may be represented by his counsel Notices in the appropriate form shall issue to them for proceedings of the contempt of Court. " Regarding the grievance of the petitioner it was ordered thus : "In the meanwhile, the interests of the petitioner have suffered. His travels in pursuit of an honest investigation of his erious grievance against the police officers of the State have not ended. " Regarding the grievance of the petitioner it was ordered thus : "In the meanwhile, the interests of the petitioner have suffered. His travels in pursuit of an honest investigation of his erious grievance against the police officers of the State have not ended. He has been running from pillar to post to have his serious grievance that the Superintendent of Police virtually destroyed his Press, investigated. We think the least that we should do to him immediately is to compensate him in terms of costs for his being compelled to approach. the Courts repetitively for relief. We direct the State of Kerala to pay to the petitioner a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards costs, now tentatively assessed, in addition to whatever damages that may be determined finally. This matter be called on 13.10.1992. The Home Secretary and Mr. Raman the then Deputy Inspector General of Police (now Vigilance Officer. Hotel Corporation of India) shall be present in Court personally on that day. Since it appears appropriate that the conduct and progress of the investigation of the case in such as not to inspire confidence, we recall the operative part of our order dated 22.12.1989 and direct the C.B.I. to investigate the complaint of the petitioner, the complete the investigation and make a report to this Court within four months from today. All the records of investigation including the representation filed by the petitioner before Mr. Raman Shall be transferred by the State to the C.B.I. promptly for further action." (Emphasis supplied) Pursuant to this the C.B.I. have filed its investigation report dated 5th of May, 1993. We shall be extract the relevant portions of the report: "During investigation evidence has been collected to show that prior to his arrest Shri Madhavan had published several news items in his evening daily critical of police activity. This seems to have enraged the District Police Administration in general and accused No. 8, the then SP of the District, in particular as some personal attacks were also made. The police were waiting for an opportunity to get him.- They got their chance when he published in his newspaper on 2.2.1988 the name, parentage, casts and other details of a rape victim, Kumari Manja, daughter of Chandu, an adivasi girl hailing from Thurunell, Way and District, Kerala. The police were waiting for an opportunity to get him.- They got their chance when he published in his newspaper on 2.2.1988 the name, parentage, casts and other details of a rape victim, Kumari Manja, daughter of Chandu, an adivasi girl hailing from Thurunell, Way and District, Kerala. The Police managed to procedure a complaint typed against Shri Madhavan in the name of the rape victim and her parents and got their thumb impressions on the same alleging that the publication of the identity of the rape victim and her parents, had caused them pain and loss of prestige. On receipt of this complaint through SP/ Wayanad, accused No. 8, ordered registration of a case against Shri Madhavan in Kannur Town Police Station. Crime No. 50/88 was registered by A-1on 12.2.1988 at 14.30 hours u/s. 228-A I.P.C. and 7(1) (d) of Protection of Civil rights Act. On the same day in the evening a police party consisting of accused No. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 17 and 18 went to the office of Sudinam and arrested Shri Madhavan. They did not reveal the grounds his arrest though asked for. They took him in the police jeep driven by A-17 through a circuitous route to Kanuur police Station and enroute they manhandled him. Accused No. 6 followed the jeep in the personnel Contenssa Car of A-8. At the police station the body search of Shri Madhavan was conducted by A-1 and he put up in the lockup. The Prisoner Search Registrar of Kannur Town Police Station has a forged signature of Shri Madhavan, purported to have been put by him at the time of this body search. Since, in the meanwhile news of his arrest was known in the town, his colleagues and relatives went to the Police Station to get him released on bail. However they were chased out by A-1 and party. Three of them then personally met A-8 and pleaded of them for bail, but they were also rebuffed. Shri Madhawan was produced before the local Magistrate in the early hours of next day and he complained to the Magistrate of the ill-treatment at the hands of Police. The Magistrate recorded a separate complaint. But did not take any further action. He ordered his release on bail on personal bond. Shri Madhawan was produced before the local Magistrate in the early hours of next day and he complained to the Magistrate of the ill-treatment at the hands of Police. The Magistrate recorded a separate complaint. But did not take any further action. He ordered his release on bail on personal bond. There are 3 witnesses who are passing on the road at that time and heard Madhawans cries from the jeep. There are no eye-witnesses to prove beating of the complainant while in police custody. However, there are a number of witnesses who had seen him in the police station with bleeding injuries on the lips. When a produced before the Magistrate at about 4.30 a.m. on 13.2.1988 he had complained to the Magistrate about the police beating and Magistrate bad recorded his complaint and also observed the blood stains on the shirts. The Medical officer who treated him in the Hospital has also said that he was complaining of pain all over the body and had an abrasion on the upper lip. It is also in his evidence that the SP i.e. accused No. 8 had tried to put pressure on the Medical officer to get the person discharged from the hospital. After he was arrested, as many as six person, all respectable journalists and an advocate had gone to the Police Station to get Madhavan released on bail. They were driven out by the police on the ground that the SP had instructed them not to release him on bail. Three of them had gone to meet the SP personally in his office for the sauté purpose, but their request was not accepted. It has been also come out in the evidence that the SP had 1remadind in the office till late in the night and was monitoring the progress in the matter of his arrest and the investigation. This has come out in the evidence of several eye-witnesses including the sub-divisional Police Officer and One SI, who were not parties to the ill-treatment of the journalist. This has come out in the evidence of several eye-witnesses including the sub-divisional Police Officer and One SI, who were not parties to the ill-treatment of the journalist. Accused No. 4 and 5 were working directly under the control of the SP, accused No. 8 With a view to concealing their involvement which would indirectly point towards involvement of the SP, the records of the Armed Reserve Camp at Kannur were tampered with and new page was substituted in the General Diary to show as if these two police men were present in the camp. The fact that page was changed has been proved by the evidence of the Superintendent of the Government Press where the said diary had been printed. There are other interpolations in the GD to show the presence of these persons in the AR camp. These interpolations have been done by A-14, 15 and 16 at the instance of A-8 The evidence collected reveals the commission of offences of criminal conspiracy, voluntarily causing hurt, wrongful conferment, in attempt to wrongfully confine a person, mischief causing damage, forgery and causing disappearance of evidence of offence, including giving false information to screen offender, which are punishable under section 120B r/w 323, 342, 357,427,465 and 201 IPC. Considering all these aspects, it has been decided that A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4, A-5,A-6, A-8, A-14, A-16, A-17, A-18 be prosecuted for offences u/s. 120-B r/w 323, 342, 857, 427, 465 and 201 IPC after getting the sanction of the government of Kerala under Section 197(1) (b) and if necessary u/s. 197 (3) of Cr. P.C. Before us it was argued on behalf of the petitioner –journalists that the may accepted and the matter be proceeded with before the appropriate forum. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent would urge that the case is developed by the petitioner from stage to stage when 2 F.I.Rs. are properly scrutinised. A mere cut on the lip, has even magnified not made much of. Then again, the petitioner would take advantage of the differences between the police officer and his wife and go to the extent of citing his wife as a witness on his behalf. This clearly exhibits his vengeful attitude. In view of all this, the trial could not be held. This court which directed the report From, C.B.I. can always say that no trial need take place and protect the police officer. 5. This clearly exhibits his vengeful attitude. In view of all this, the trial could not be held. This court which directed the report From, C.B.I. can always say that no trial need take place and protect the police officer. 5. Further argument was that the Delhi Special. Police establishment cannot investigate into the matter unless the government of Kerala accord consent for the exercise of powers under section 6 of Delhi Special Police Establishment Act 6. We have given our careful considerations to the above submissions. We do not think we can come to the rescue of the police officer. Whether they are guilty or not of the offences for which they are charged is a matter to be established in a criminal trial There for we refrain from making any observation. 7. As regards jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment, we do not think the procedure under section 6 need be followed where this court exercised jurisdiction under Article 142 of the constitution. Even otherwise, we find a notification has been issued by government of Kerala to the following effect Government of Kerala Home (F) Department Notification No. 8021/F1/92 Home Thiruvanthapuram. Dated 3rd Oct. 1992 In pursuance pf the provisions of section 6 of the Delhi Special police Establishment act, 1946(Central Act 25 of 1946) the Government of Kerala hereby accord consent to the extension of powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi special police establishment in the whole of the state of Kerala for investigation of the complaint of Shri Maniyeri Madhavan, Editor, Sudinam Daily, Kannur as ordered by the Honble Supreme Court of India in their order dated 24.9.1992 in SLP No. 2755/88. (By order of the Governor). Sd/- C.P. Nair Comm. & Secretary to Government Explanatory Note (This does not Court part of the notification but is intended to indicate its general purpose). The Honble supreme Court of India, in their order dated 24.9.1992, in SLP No. 2755j88 has directed the central Bureau of Investigation to Investigate the complaint of Shri Maniyari Madhnavan, Editor Sudinam Daily, Kannur against the attacks made on him and his property allegedly at the investigation of certain police officers of the state of Kerala, and to submit a report within four months, Hence this notification." 8. All that this Court has to do is merely record the report and let the law take its course. All that this Court has to do is merely record the report and let the law take its course. The Special leave petition is ordered on the above terms. S.L.P. Ordered accordingly. THE ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES (SPECIAL PROVISIONS) AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 (34 of 1993) [3rdApril,1993] An act further to amend the Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Act, 1981 and to make special provisions by way of amendment to the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Be it enacted by Parliament in the Forty fourth Year of the Republic of India as follows: 1. Short title and commencement. . (1) This Act may be called the Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Amendment Act, 1993. (2) It shall be deemed to have come into force on the 27th day of August, 1992. 2. Amendment of preamble. - In paragraph 2 of the preamble to the Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Act, 1981 (18 of 1981) (hereinafter referred to as the Principal Act), for the words "ten years", the words "fifteen years" shall be substituted. 3. Amendment of section 1. - In section 1 of the Principal Act, in sub-section (3), for the words "ten years", the words "fifteen years" shall be substituted. 4. Insertion of new section 9A. - After section 9 of the Principal Act, the following section shall be inserted, namely: 9A. Insertion of new section l0AA. - In the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, (20 of 1955) after section IDA, the following section shall be inserted, namely:- "10AA. Power to arrest.- Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (2 of 1974) no officer below the rank of an officer in charge of a police station or any police officer authorised by him in this behalf in writing, shall arrest any person accused of committing an offence punishable under this Act." 5. Repeal and saving. - (1) The Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Amendment Ordinance, 1993 (Ord. 1 of 1993) is hereby repealed. (2) Notwithstanding such repeal, anything done or any action taken under the Principal Act, as amended by the said Ordinance, shall be deemed to have been done or taken under the Principal Act, as amended by this Act. THE EXTRADITION (AMENDMENT) ACT, 1993 (66 of 1993) [4th September, 1993] An Act further to amend the Extradition Act, 1962. Be it enacted by Parliament in the Forty fourth Year of the Republic of India as follows: 1. Short title, extent and commencement. THE EXTRADITION (AMENDMENT) ACT, 1993 (66 of 1993) [4th September, 1993] An Act further to amend the Extradition Act, 1962. Be it enacted by Parliament in the Forty fourth Year of the Republic of India as follows: 1. Short title, extent and commencement. - (1) This Act may be called the Extradition Amendment) Act, 1993. (2) It extends to the whole of India. (3) It shall come into force on such date as he Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint. 2. Amendment of long title. - In the Extradition Act, 1962 (34 of 1962) (hereinafter referred to as the Principal Act), in the long title, after the word "criminals", the words "and to provide for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto" shall be added. 3. Substitution of words "foreign State" for words "common wealth country". - In the Principal Act, (a) the words "or commonwealth country" and the words "or country", wherever they occur, shall be omitted; (b) for the words "commonwealth country", wherever they occur, the words "foreign State" shall be substituted. 4. Amendment of section 2. 3. Substitution of words "foreign State" for words "common wealth country". - In the Principal Act, (a) the words "or commonwealth country" and the words "or country", wherever they occur, shall be omitted; (b) for the words "commonwealth country", wherever they occur, the words "foreign State" shall be substituted. 4. Amendment of section 2. - In section 2 of the Principal Act, (a) for clause (a), the following clause shall be substituted, namely (a) "composite offence" means an act or conduct of a person occurred, wholly or in part, in a foreign State or in India but its effects or intended effects, taken as a whole, would constitute an extradition offence in India or in a foreign State, as the case may be; (b) for clause (c), the following clause shall be substituted, namely (c) "extradition offence" means (i) in relation to a foreign State, being a treaty State, an offence provided for in the extradition treaty with that State; (ii) in relation to a foreign State other than a treaty State an offence punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year under the laws of India or of a foreign State and includes a composite offence; (c) in clause (d), for the words "or agreement" at both the places where they occur, the words "agreement or arrangement" shall be substituted; (d) in clause (e), the words "other than a commonwealth country", shall be omitted; (e) for clause (f), the following clause shall be substituted, namely : (f) "fugitive criminal" means a person who is accused or convicted of an extradition offence I within the jurisdiction of a foreign State and includes a person who, while in India, conspires, attempts to commit or incites or participates as an accomplice in the commission of an extradition offence in a foreign State. 5. Amendment of section 3. 5. Amendment of section 3. - In section 3 of the Principal Act, (a) for sub-section (1), the following sub section shall be substituted, namely : "(1) The Central Government may, by notified order, direct that the provisions of this Act, other than Chapter III, shall apply to such foreign State or part thereof as may be specified in the order."; (b) after sub-section (3), the following sub section shall be inserted, namely : "(4) Where there is no extradition treaty made by India with any foreign State, the Central Government may, by notified order, treat any Convention to which India and a foreign State are parties, as an extradition treaty made by India with that foreign State providing for extradition in respect of the offences specified in. that Convention. " 6. Amendment of Chapter II - In Chapter II of the principal Act, in the heading, the words "And to commonwealth countries" shall be omitted. 7. Amendment of section 10. - In section 10 of the principal Act, in sub-section (2), in clause (d), the word "respectively" shall be omitted. 8. Amendment of section 11. - In section 11 of the principal Act, the words "of a common wealth country" shall be omitted. 9. Amendment of Chapter III - In Chapter III of the principal Act, in the heading, for the words "commonwealth countries", the words "Foreign States" shall be substituted. 10. Amendment of section 12. - In section 12 of the principal Act, in sub-section (1), for the word "country", the word "State" shall be substituted. 11. Amendment of Chapter IV. - In Chapter IV of the principal Act, in the heading, the words "Or Commonwealth Countries" shall be omitted. 12. Substitution of new section for section 21. - For section 21 of the principal Act, the following section shall be substituted, namely: "21. Accused or convicted person surrendered or returned by foreign State not to be tried for certain offences. - In Chapter IV of the principal Act, in the heading, the words "Or Commonwealth Countries" shall be omitted. 12. Substitution of new section for section 21. - For section 21 of the principal Act, the following section shall be substituted, namely: "21. Accused or convicted person surrendered or returned by foreign State not to be tried for certain offences. - Whenever any person accused or convicted of an offence, which, if committed in India would be an extradition offence, is surrendered or returned by a foreign State, such person shall not, until he has been restored or has had an opportunity of returning to that State, be tried in India for an offence other -than (a) the extradition offence in relation to which he was surrendered or returned; or (b) any lesser offence disclosed by the facts proved for the purposes of securing his surrender or return other than an offence in relation to which an order for his surrender or return could not be lawfully made; or (c) the offence in respect of which the foreign State has given its consent." 13. Amendment of section 25. - In section 25 of the principal Act, for the words and figures "the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898" 5 of I89S, the words and figures "the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973" (2 of 1974) shall be substituted. 14. Amendment of section 26. - In section 26 of the principal Act, after the words "or abetting", the words, "conspiring, attempting to commit, inciting or participating as an accomplice in the commission of shall be inserted. 15. Amendment of section 30 - In section 30 of the principal Act, the words "or commonwealth country or from any foreign State and any commonwealth country" shall be omitted. 16. Amendment of section 31. 15. Amendment of section 30 - In section 30 of the principal Act, the words "or commonwealth country or from any foreign State and any commonwealth country" shall be omitted. 16. Amendment of section 31. - In the principal Act, - (a) section 31 shall be re-numbered as subsection (1) of that section and in sub-section (1) as so re-numbered, for clause (c), the following clause shall be substituted, namely: "(c) unless provision is made by that law of the foreign Slate or in the extradition treaty with the foreign Slate that the fugitive criminal shall not be determined or tried in that State for an offence other than (i) the extradition offence in relation to which he is to be surrendered or returned; (ii) any lesser offence disclosed by the facts proved for the purposes of securing his surrender or return other than an offence in relation to which an order for his surrender or return could not be lawfully made; or (iii) the offence in respect of which the Central Government has given its consent;" (b) after sub-section (1) as so renumbered, the following sub-sections shall be inserted, namely: "(2) For the purposes of sub-section (1), the offences specified in the Schedule shall not be regarded as offences of a political character. (3) The Central Government having regard to the extradition treaty made by India with any foreign State may, by notified order, add or omit any offence from the list given in the Schedule." 17. Substitution of new sections for section 34. - For section 34 of the principal Act, the following sections shall be substituted, namely: "34. Extra territorial jurisdiction. - An extradition offence committed by any person in a foreign State shall be deemed to have &en committed in India and such person shall be liable to be prosecuted in India for such offence. 34A. Prosecution on refusal to extradition - Where the Central Government is of the opinion that a fugitive criminal cannot be surrendered or returned pursuant to a request for extradition from a foreign State, it may, as it thinks fit, take steps to prosecute such fugitive criminal in India. 34B. Provisional arrest. 34A. Prosecution on refusal to extradition - Where the Central Government is of the opinion that a fugitive criminal cannot be surrendered or returned pursuant to a request for extradition from a foreign State, it may, as it thinks fit, take steps to prosecute such fugitive criminal in India. 34B. Provisional arrest. - (1) On receipt of an urgent request from a foreign State for the immediate arrest of a fugitive criminal, the Central Government may request the Magistrate having competent jurisdiction to issue a provisional warrant for the arrest of such fugitive criminal. (2) A fugitive criminal arrested under subsection (1) shall be discharged upon the expiration of sixty days from the date of his arrest if no request for his surrender or return is received within the said period. 34C. Provision of life imprisonment for death penalty. - Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, where a fugitive criminal, who has committed an extradition offence punishable with death in India, is, surrendered or returned by a foreign State on the request of the Central Government and the laws of that foreign State do -Dot provide for a death penalty for such-an offence, such fugitive criminal shall be liable for punishment of imprisonment for life only for that offence." 15. Substitution of new Schedule for the First and Second Schedules. . In the principal Act, for the First and Second Schedules, the following Schedule shall be substituted, namely: "THE SCHEDULE [See section 31(2)] OFFENCES WHICH ARE NOT TO BE REGARDED AS OFFENCES OF A POLTICAL CHARACTER The following list of offences is to be construed according to the law in force in India on the date of the alleged offence. Wherever the names of the relevant Acts are not given, the sections referred to are the sections of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860): 1. Offences under the Anti-Hijacking Act, 1982 (65 of 1982). 2. Offences under the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against Safety of Civil Aviation Act, 1982 (66 of 1982) 3. An offence within the scope of the Convention on the punishment of crimes against Internationally protected persons including diplomatic agents, opened for signature at New York on 14th December, 1973. 4. An offence within the scope of the International Convention against the taking of hostages opened for signature at New York on 18th December, 1979. 5. An offence within the scope of the Convention on the punishment of crimes against Internationally protected persons including diplomatic agents, opened for signature at New York on 14th December, 1973. 4. An offence within the scope of the International Convention against the taking of hostages opened for signature at New York on 18th December, 1979. 5. Culpable homicide, murder (sections 299 to 304) 6. Voluntarily causing hurt or grievous hurt by a dangerous weapon or means (sections 321 to 333). 7. Offences under the Explosive Sub stances Act, 1908 (6 of 1908). 8. Possession of a firearm or ammunition with intention to endanger life [section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959)]. 9. The use of a firearm with intention to resist or prevent the arrest or detention [section 28 of the Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959)]. 10. Causing of loss or damage to property used for public utilities or otherwise with intention to endanger life (section 425 read with section 440). 11. Wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement (sections 339 to 348). 12. Kidnapping and abduction including taking or hostages (sections 359 to 369). 13. Offences related to terrorism and terrorist acts [Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (prevention) Act, 1987 (28 of 1987)]. 14. Abetting, conspiring or attempting to commit, inciting, participating as an accomplice in the commission of any of the offences listed above. " THE PREVENTION OF ILLICIT TRAFFIC, IN NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES (AMENDMENT) ACT, 1993 (58 of 1993) [27th August, 1993] An Act further to amend the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 Be it enacted by Parliament in the Forty fourth Year of the Republic of India as follows: 1. Short title and commencement. . (1) This Act may be called the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Amendment) Act, 1993. (2) It shall be deemed to have come into force on the 30th day of June, 1993. 2. Amendment of section 10 of Act 46 of 1988. . In the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the principal Act), in section 10, in sub-section (1), for the figures, letters and words "31st day of July, 1993", the figures, letters and words "31stday.of July, 1996" shall be substituted. 3. Amendment of section 10 of Act 46 of 1988. . In the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the principal Act), in section 10, in sub-section (1), for the figures, letters and words "31st day of July, 1993", the figures, letters and words "31stday.of July, 1996" shall be substituted. 3. Repeal and saving - (1) The Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Amendment) Ordinance, 1993, (Ord. 27 of 1993) is hereby repealed. (2) Notwithstanding such repeal, anything done or any action taken under the principal Act, as amended by the said Ordinance, shall be deemed to have been done or taken under the principal Act as amended by his Act. AN AMENDMENT - CUSTOMS ACT 1962 The law relating to customs was needed to be amended and in order to combat and cope up with sophisticated mode of smuggling and rise in the incidence of the offences of smuggling and evasion of duties stringent law was need of the hour and eventually and ultimately present Customs Act 1962 was enacted and the same continues to govern the subject matter with amendments now and then. The old laws e.g. Sea Customs Act & Land Customs Act were thus repealed. Despite the stringency of law the smugglers used to break the law and continued to carry out their nefarious activities with more vengeance and zeal and since the dividends they got were high they equipped themselves with fast moving vehicles on land and sea and even by air. The Governmental machinery was and is being outwitted by the scheming smugglers. All this gave vigorous impetus, courage and confidence to smugglers to venture yet more freely and effectively with all contempt and condemnation of law. The law unto them became a toy to play and break it at sweet will and desire. The cumulative effect and accumulation of huge easy money, in foreign currency as well, was that the smugglers turned themselves to not only economic offences but also clandestine trade of dangerous drugs and weapons. The legislature enacted laws like N.D.P.S. Act and also Arms Act to an extent had been amended but the effect was NIL so far as Customs Act and smuggling is concerned. The legislature enacted laws like N.D.P.S. Act and also Arms Act to an extent had been amended but the effect was NIL so far as Customs Act and smuggling is concerned. The smugglers impeach the law with impunity and many a times with a connivance and assistance of the personnel, whose duty is to see that the letter of law is enforced and abided scrupulously. There appears something lacking and lagging. The law has no sharp teeth, it has no efficacy to deal with the crime effectively, and the provisions of law are yet vacillating and unspecific, M.B. SARDAR, Advocate. 28. Anand Colony. Bhuj Kachchh 370001. and the need of the time is something concrete, definite and effective. These days the smuggling is not confirmed to gold, silver, electronics and other consumer items, but now it has gone to dangerous proportions. Now the smuggling ranges to not only gold, silver and electronics but to arms and ammunition of utmost sophisticated and dangerous character. AK 47, AK 56 rifles are common commodities and are available like any consumer items. RDX gun powder, hand grenades, rocket launchers, hey, bombs too are being smuggled into our country and our country has become heaven for smugglers and the nation is on the nozzle of a gun. The terrorism, now, is not confined to only particular areas only, but now it has spread from Calcutta to Amritsar and Kashmir to Tamilnadu. The cities like Bombay, Calcutta, Madras, Ahmedabad and many more have become the victims of the hollocasts by bomb blasts. Its all terror and terror and terror everywhere. All this is not due to internal repercussions but due to the huge amounts-of arms and ammunitions smuggled in the country. The only remedy which is required is to sharpen the teeth of the Customs Act, 1962 on the stringent line even harsher than the N.D.P.S. Act, and TADA. Smuggling- promotes terrorism and that being so, unless Customs Act is made absolutely harsh and punishment very high, the situation would yet worsen. The forum of taking cognizance and conducting trials deserves to be on a higher pedestal of judiciary. Smuggling- promotes terrorism and that being so, unless Customs Act is made absolutely harsh and punishment very high, the situation would yet worsen. The forum of taking cognizance and conducting trials deserves to be on a higher pedestal of judiciary. Since these offences are committed through international agencies and money in billions rolls, the offences are committed in absolute secrecy, planning and scheming, the investigation would naturally take a very longtime and some streneous efforts to fathom the plans and schemes of the offenders till have to be made. There should be a blanket ban on bail and if that is deemed very harsh a ban on the lines of TADA deserves to be there. These things will only help to bring about peace in the country. In India everything and every person needs security. Train needs security, plane needs it, VIPs need it most, factories, mills, banks and every branch of life is now under the veil of security. Enormous money from the coffers of the national banks is wasted over security in order to see that we get protection from smuggled arms, ammunitions, explosives etc. etc. Why not then make the law of customs more harsh, quick and effective? Why not then ban bails in such cases? Why not then punishment be made harsh in such cases? Why a higher forum of judiciary may not be entrusted with powers of cognizance, inquiry and trial? Why not then there be sufficient time allotted for a thorough, penetrative and pinpointed investigation? Why not make the country secure by preventing smuggling rather then using TADA after the contrabands and instruments of destruction are smuggled in the country? The trials are sluggish, lingering and time consuming. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, to my mind, are not at all the proper judicial officers to inquire and try these cases. Mostly, they are ignorant of the seriousness and at times their dealings of such cases are incompetent. The offences under Customs Act deserve to be tried by a Special Court or Sessions Court. If simple cases under SC & ST Prevention of Atrocities Act are triable by Sessions Courts then the Customs cases, in the interest of security of the nation, deserve better and higher forum of judiciary. The offences under Customs Act deserve to be tried by a Special Court or Sessions Court. If simple cases under SC & ST Prevention of Atrocities Act are triable by Sessions Courts then the Customs cases, in the interest of security of the nation, deserve better and higher forum of judiciary. The law and its application deserves to change with time and old and obsoletely idle provisions of law have to be replenished in the present social context and law should be made on par with competitive combatness to complete with and cope up with the nefarious and faster moving methods of the smugglers. But the situation is otherwise. Many a times, say most of the times, these white collar criminals create hell with the law executing authorities by shouting at the top of their voices about the fundamental rights and breach thereof. A criminal, especially white collar Criminal e.g. a smuggler engages the investigating agencies by moving application after application and hinders the investigation and even does not allow the investigation to proceed through his manouevers in the court. And then the smugglers shed crocodile tears of breach of fundamental rights. A criminal does not and cannot have a fundamental right especially to subvert the law & justice. Every right has corresponding duty. A criminal before committing a crime of smuggling carries out scheming, planning and committing cries in secrecy and risking the national security and maiming the economy and staining the social fibre deserves to be finally placed under the grasp and grip of last four words of Art. 21 - "procedure established by law". Speedy trial falling within the precincts of Article 21 would not hold good for such offences. His Lordship Mr. Justice M.P. Thakker in A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 1107 very rightly held as under: "The fact that 20 years have elapsed since the date of the seizure of gold under Customs Act, 1962 and Gold Control Act, 1968, would be no ground for not proceeding with the matter inasmuch as the offence in question was a serious economic offence, which undermines the entire economy of the nation". The procedure to be legislated under the Customs Act vis-a-vis smugglers should be unpierceable and water-tight. No leniency deserves to be there and unless we do that the security and economy of the nation is on tanterhooks and we can never dream of "Happy India". The procedure to be legislated under the Customs Act vis-a-vis smugglers should be unpierceable and water-tight. No leniency deserves to be there and unless we do that the security and economy of the nation is on tanterhooks and we can never dream of "Happy India". So the need of the situation is a drastic amendment in Customs Act. Certainly an Amendment. For Citation : 1994 Crl. L.J. 3063 = AIR 1994 SC 1033 = (1994) 1 SCC 536 = 1994 SCC (Crl.) 442