2013 (2) TMI 698 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the appellant could be tried by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, for the offences punishable under Sections 408, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC notwithstanding the fact that the First Schedule of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as amended by Code of Criminal Procedure (Madhya Pradesh Amendment) Act of 2007, made offences punishable under Sections 467, 468 and 471 of the Penal Code triable only by the Court of Sessions? Whether the recent amendment dated 22nd February, 2008 in the Schedule-I of the Cr.P.C. is to be applied retrospectively? Whether the cases pending before the Magistrate First Class, in which evidence partly or wholly has been recorded, and now have been committed to this Court are to be tried de novo by the Court of Sessions or should be remanded back to the Magistrate First Class for further trial?

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of the Madhya Pradesh Amendment Act, 2007 to pending cases.
2. Forum of trial for offences under Sections 467, 468, and 471 of IPC post-amendment.
3. Retrospective vs. prospective application of procedural laws.
4. Vested right of forum for trial.
5. Doctrine of prospective overruling.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of the Madhya Pradesh Amendment Act, 2007 to Pending Cases:
The core issue was whether the amendment to the First Schedule of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) by the Madhya Pradesh Amendment Act, 2007, which made certain offences triable by the Court of Sessions instead of the Magistrate First Class, applied retrospectively to cases pending before the amendment came into force. The Full Bench of the High Court held that the amendment did not apply to pending cases, and such cases should remain with the Judicial Magistrate First Class.

2. Forum of Trial for Offences under Sections 467, 468, and 471 of IPC Post-Amendment:
The appellant was charged with offences under Sections 408, 420, 467, 468, and 471 of IPC. Initially, these offences were triable by a Magistrate First Class. However, the amendment shifted the trial forum to the Court of Sessions. The Supreme Court held that since the charge-sheet was filed after the amendment came into force, the case was rightly committed to the Sessions Court.

3. Retrospective vs. Prospective Application of Procedural Laws:
The Supreme Court noted that procedural laws are generally retrospective unless expressly stated otherwise. The amendment in question was procedural, affecting the forum of trial, and thus applied retrospectively. This meant that even though the offences were committed before the amendment, the trial had to be conducted by the Court of Sessions as per the amended law.

4. Vested Right of Forum for Trial:
The appellant argued for a vested right to be tried by the forum specified in the original Schedule I of the 1973 Code. The Supreme Court clarified that while individuals have vested rights in substantive law, no such right exists in procedural law, including the forum of trial. Therefore, the appellant could not claim a right to be tried by the Magistrate First Class.

5. Doctrine of Prospective Overruling:
The Supreme Court invoked the doctrine of prospective overruling to mitigate potential hardships. It held that the overruling of the Full Bench decision would not affect cases already tried or at an advanced stage before the Magistrates. This approach was taken to avoid unnecessary hardship and ensure that cases nearing conclusion were not disrupted by a change in the forum.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the amendment to the Cr.P.C. applied retrospectively to pending cases, and the appellant was correctly committed to the Sessions Court for trial. The Court also emphasized that procedural changes, including changes in the forum of trial, do not confer vested rights and are generally retrospective. The doctrine of prospective overruling was applied to protect cases already tried or at advanced stages from being affected by the decision.

← Previous Next →