N M KARUNAKARAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the accused in C.C.No.9 of 1998 praying to transfer the said case from the file of the Court of Special Judge under TNPID Cases, Chennai to the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai on averments such as that the respondent has registered two criminal cases in Crime Nos.X.758 of 1996 and 968 of 1996 and on completion of the investigation had filed a final report before the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai and the same was taken on file as C.C.No.1066 of 1997 for offences punishable under Sections 120.B, 409, 420, 506(I) I.P.C. and Sections 3,4,5 and 6 of Prize Chit and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978; that the final report was filed against 12 persons and the petitioner was shown as the first accused on the allegation that the petitioner was the Managing Director of Devi Gold House and was offering incentives for deposits and also high rate of interest; that on maturity of the fixed deposits, the sums were not repaid to the depositors as had been promised initially.

(2.) It is further averred that in the final report it is mentioned that the offences are alleged to have been committed during 1996 and the final report itself had been filed on 7.2.1997 and the same was taken on file on 21.2.1997 by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate; that thereafter the case was transferred to the Court of Special Judge, TNPID Act, Chennai during July 1998; that the TNPID Act came into force only on 7.8.1997 in which the special enactment provides for enhanced punishment and for attachment of properties; that the provisions of the Act do not have any retrospective effect; that on the date of alleged offence the Act had not come into force and since the Act had not come into force at the time of the commission of the offence, he cannot be tried and convicted for any offence except for the violation of law in force at the time of commission of the offence charged in terms of Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India; that in view of the Act not having come into force at the time of the commission of offence the Court of Special Judge constituted under TNPID Act is not competent to invoke the provisions of the said Act and try the petitioner for the alleged violation of provisions of the Act and for these reasons the petitioner would submit that the case in C.C.No.9 of 1998 pending on the file of the Court of Special Judge, TNPID Act, Chennai has to be transferred to the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai who is competent to try the offences which are set out in the original final report and would pray to pass an order to the said effect.

(3.) During arguments, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would submit that it is Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India which is relevant to the context of the case. Resisting the said Article the learned counsel would exhort that any one could be convicted of an offence for violation of the law in force only at the time of commission of the act charged as an offence, nor could he be subjected to a penalty greater than what is inflicted under the law in force, at the time of commission of the offence.