SHYAMRAO VITHOBA PILLARE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) The accused is being prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 354B, 294, 509 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution is lodged against the applicant because of the incident which allegedly occurred on 25/04/2016 and was reported on 27/04/2016. The chargesheet was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 18/10/2016. On 23/11/2016, the prosecution filed an application under Section 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for addition of charge under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate allowed this application by the order dated 03/01/2017 and accepted the prayer made on behalf of the prosecution for framing the charge under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused. The charges came to be framed on 06/01/2017. The examination of the witness of the prosecution started on 17/01/2017. At the stage of examination of the first witness on behalf of the prosecution, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate passed an order on 19/10/2018 and committed the case to the Sessions Court. On 01/12/2018, the accused filed an application (Exh. 10) praying that the trial be remitted to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate. The applicant contended that amendment of Section 332 and Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code and amendment of Section 309 and amendment of Ist Schedule of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the Indian Penal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure (Maharashtra Amendment) Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred as "the Maharashtra Act No. 40/2018") is not with retrospective effect and therefore the trial cannot be committed to the Sessions Court. Relying on the Maharashtra Act No. 40/2018, this application is dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge by the impugned order.

(3.) The learned advocate for the applicant argued that if amendment to the relevant provisions by the Maharashtra Act No. 40/2018 is considered to be with retrospective effect, then it will mean that the accused can be sentenced for the enhanced punishment as provided by the amendment and this is not permissible and would be violative of Article 20 (1) of the Constitution of India. It is further submitted that the trial has already commenced in as much as recording of the evidence of the witness on behalf of the prosecution has begun and committal of the case at this stage would not be permissible.