Section 3: Later law more favourable to the offender

Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section

1. Supreme Court Judgment No. 875/2568 (2025)

   Re-fixing a penalty under Section 3(1) is available only where the penalty imposed by the final judgment is heavier than the penalty fixed by the later law; otherwise the motion must be refused.

   In a narcotics case, the Supreme Court considered whether there were grounds to re-fix the defendant's penalty under Section 3(1) and confirmed that the power applies only when the final penalty exceeds the ceiling of the later law.

2. Supreme Court Judgment No. 7422/2568 (2025)

   Where the penalty under the law in force at the time of the offence differs from and is heavier than the penalty under the later law, Section 3 requires the more favourable later law to apply in whatever respect.

   The Supreme Court held that because the penalty under the old narcotics law was heavier than that under the new Narcotics Code, the more favourable new code applied under Section 3, and re-fixing the penalty accordingly did not offend the legality principle.

3. Supreme Court Judgment No. 434/2568 (2025)

   A motion to re-fix a penalty under Section 3(1) requires that the penalty fixed by the final judgment be heavier than the penalty provided by the later law.

   The Supreme Court, in a narcotics case, restated that re-fixing a penalty under Section 3(1) is confined to cases where the final penalty is heavier than the penalty set by the later law.

Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.