Bharat vs State of M.P.

B.D. Rathi, J.—Heard.

This is a petition preferred u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. challenging the order dated 8/10/13 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dabra, district Gwalior (M.P.) whereby a criminal case No. 841/01 arising out of Crime No. 99/01 registered against the petitioner-accused for offence under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468 of I.P.C. has been committed to the court of session. Obviously, pursuant to the said order, case was registered as ST No. 462/13 which is pending before the court of First Additional Sessions Judge, Dabra, district Gwalior. It was the said order, which has been assailed herein.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the order of committal is passed by the trial court against the settled principles of law. It is submitted that even as per prosecution''s own case, the crime registered against the petitioner-accused was committed during the period from 1998-2001 and at that time the alleged offences were triable by the Judicial Magistrate First Class. Thereafter, amendment was brought in the Criminal Procedure Code by M.P. Act No. 2/2008 under first schedule in Col. No. 6 by which the words "Magistrate First Class" was substituted by the words "Court of Session" and succinctly the offences which were earlier triable by the Magistrate First Class, are made triable by the court of session. This amendment came into force after 22nd February, 2008. On this premises it is submitted that the approach of the court was not in consonance with the provisions of the law and therefore, the order impugned being not sustainable is liable to be quashed.

On the other hand, it is the argument of the learned counsel for the State that no interference is warranted and the petition may be rejected.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, entire case has been looked into.

It is not dispute that in this case the offence was committed long back pertaining to the period ranging from 1998-2001 and the charge-sheet was submitted thereafter by the prosecution before the trial court long before in the year 2001. The order of committal was passed by the Magistrate after lapse of more than eleven years in view of Amendment incorporated in the year 2008.

Hence, the question crops us for consideration in this case is whether the amended provision which came into force from 22nd February 2008 in the Schedule-I of the Cr.P.C. has retrospective effect or not?.

The answer to the aforesaid question is primarily based on the language of the amended provision in which it is couched. It is open to the legislature to enact laws which have retrospective operation and the courts are not supposed to ascribe retrospectivity to new laws affecting rights unless by express words or necessary implication it appears that such was the intention of the legislature. Such retrospective effect can be given where there are express words giving retrospective effect or where the language used necessarily implies that such retrospective operation is intended. It is a cardinal principle of construction that every statute is prima facie prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have retrospective operation.

In the light of the aforesaid, the learned trial Magistrate was absolutely wrong to give implication of the amended Act retrospectively while committing the case to the court of sessions after lapse of more than eleven years.

Apart the aforesaid, the Hon. Apex Court facing the same situation in case of Ramesh Kumar Soni Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, in para 8, specifically laid down that the case having been instituted under the Amendment Act had taken effect, there was no need to look for any provision in the Amendment Act for determining whether the amendment was applicable even to pending matters as on the date of the amendment no case had been instituted against the appellant nor was it pending before any Court to necessitate a search for any such provision in the Amendment Act.

Thus, the question raised in this case gets a complete answer from the ratio of the aforesaid decision of Hon. Apex Court. As discussed above, in the present case, it is found that before coming into force the new Amendment Act, the case was pending before the trial Magistrate, so in that eventuality the Magistrate was empowered by the law to try with the case, but unfortunately, learned Magistrate thought it fit to commit the case to the court of sessions.

In view of the aforesaid, the learned Magistrate seems to have committed gross mistake, warranting interference by this court under the revisional jurisdiction. In the opinion of this court, therefore the order impugned is not sustainable in law. It is accordingly set aside. The matter is remanded back to the trial Magistrate for trial of the case as per the provisions of law.