JAVANA VENKATANAIDU Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 22. 03. 2001 passed by the Special Tribunal under Indian Electricity Act (Additional Sessions Judge, vizianagaram) in C. C. No. 15 of 2000 whereby and whereunder the appellant was convicted for the offence under Sections 39 of the Indian Electricity Act and was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and further convicted for the offence under Section 44 of the indian Electricity Act and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- and was also directed to pay compensation of Rs. 1,82,328/- to the Electricity Board (Andhra Pradesh Transco) as per Section 49-C (iv) of the amended Act.

(2.) AT the hearing of the appeal, Mr. C. Padmanabha Reddy, learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant argued that the Special Tribunal has no jurisdiction to try the offence, since it was committed on 28. 12. 1999 i. e. , prior to coming into force on the amendment Act called the Indian Electricity (Andhra Pradesh Amendment) Act, 2000 which came into force on 02. 11. 2000.

(3.) BY virtue of the amendment, any case pending before any Court or other authority, immediately before the commencement of the amended Act shall stand transferred to the Special Tribunal, having jurisdiction. But the learned senior Counsel would submit that despite the express wording of the above mentioned provision, the cases pending before other Courts as on the date of coming into force of the Amended Act cannot be transferred to the Special tribunal as the same would jeopardize the rights of the accused. Reliance is placed by the learned Counsel on Ch. Prabhakar Vs. State of A. P. 1 wherein the division bench of this Court dealing with similar situation held as follows: "an accused person who is alleged to have committed an offence must ordinarily be tried in accordance with law as existed at relevant time when the offence was alleged to have been committed. Clause (1) of Article 20 of the constitution forbids enhancement of punishment. No person shall be liable for punishment under any penal law except for violation of a law in force at the time of commission of the act charged as an offence nor he or she shall be inflicted with greater punishment than that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of the commission of the offence. " by reason of the Amending Act, 2000, the accused is not only deprived from a procedure which was beneficial to him but he is also deprived of a right to file a criminal revision in terms of Section 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal procedure. Apart from the punishment, which may be imposed upon him under the law, he may also be held liable to pay compensation. As per the Amending Act, 2000, not only the term of punishment was enhanced but also the amount of fine was also increased manifold. In a given case the Special Tribunal may transfer a case to a Special Court, in which event; he loses a right of appeal. A penal law cannot be made retrospective. Even a statute, normally, cannot be held to be retrospective unless so stated expressly or by reason of necessary implication therefor in the enactment. In a situation of this nature, in our opinion, having regard to the constitutional provisions, the provisions of Amendment Act must be read down as otherwise, the same may have to be declared ultra vires.