UNION OF INDIA Vs. PREMABHAI DAJIBHAI TANDEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent/accused was charged under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962, and also under Section 85 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, (hereinafter referred to as "The Gold Control Act" read with Customs Gold (Control) and Central Excises and Salt (Amendment) Act, 1973, (hereinafter referred to as "the Amending Act"). He pleaded guilty. The trial Court accepted his plea and convicted him. Thereupon the trial Court released the respondent under Section 4 (1) of the Probation of Offienders Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") on his entering into a bond of Rs. 1,000/- with one surety in the like sum, to appear and receive sentence when called upon, for a period of one year and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour.

(2.) The contention of Shri Dias is that when the sentence was awarded the power of the Court to release him under Section 4 of the Act was no longer existing. The argument of Shri Kolwalkar for the respondent, is that the Act was applicable to offences under the Gold Control Acts when the alleged offence was committed by the respondent that the Act is a beneficial legislation; that when the offence was committed by the respondent, the respondent had a vested right to be dealt with under the Act; and that in the absence of any specific provision in the Gold Control Act and Amending Act, taking away the power of the Court in pending proceedings, the Court should be deemed to continue to have the power to apply to accused like the respondent the beneficial provisions of the Act. Shri Kolwalkar concludes that the order of the trial Court is legal and should not be interfered with in revision.

(3.) I agree with Shri Kolwalkar. Penal provisions of law are by their nature, substantive. A person who commits an offence is entitled to be dealt with under the penal law which is in force at the time of the commission of the offence. It is not disputed that in the present case the Act was applicable to offences under the Gold Control Act when the respondent committed the offence. He was at that time entitled to be dealt with under the beneficial provision of the Act and since his right was not taken away by the express provision of law or by necessary intendment, the trial Court was justified in dealing with him under the provisions of the Act.