Supreme Court: Whether Subsequent Judgment Overruling Earlier Judgment if applied Retrospectively will affect rights of accused under article 20(1) of constitution?

 Furthermore, the retrospective application of the dictum in Sanjeev V. Deshpande (supra) would not give rise to any implications as regards the rights of the Accused persons Under Article 20(1) of the Constitution. This is because while overruling the decision in Rajesh Kumar Gupta (supra), the decision in Sanjeev V. Deshpande (supra) has only clarified the law as it stood from its inception and given true effect to the meaning assigned to the relevant provisions of the NDPS Act and the Rules thereunder, by the lawmakers. The same cannot be construed as creating a new offence. Additionally, the overruling of a decision cannot be equated to the enactment of an ex-post facto law, especially when the interpretation given to the statute/provision in the overruling decision is not a novel and unreasonably expansive interpretation of the provision in question such that it was completely unforeseeable. It cannot be reasonably argued that the indiscriminate dealing in of substances which are only mentioned under the Schedule to the NDPS Act and absent under Schedule I of the NDPS Rules, was indubitably legal and allowed by the legislation, prior to the decision in Sanjeev V. Deshpande (supra). Therefore, there remains no doubt in our minds that giving retrospective effect to the decision in Sanjeev V. Deshpande (supra) would be necessary considering the facts and circumstances in the background of which we are called upon to adjudicate these matters. {Para 159}

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal Nos. 1319 of 2013 and 272 of 2014

Decided On: 17.04.2025

Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Vs. Raj Kumar Arora and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ.

Author: J.B. Pardiwala, J.

Citation: MANU/SC/0500/2025,2025 INSC 498.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Article 20 of Indian Constitution Doesn't Prohibit Court From Imposing Lesser Punishment As Per New Law

Whether the Appellant can be granted the benefit of the new legislation and be awarded a lesser punishment as is presently prescribed under the new law? This Court in T. Barai v. Henry Ah Hoe   MANU/SC/0123/1982 : 1982:INSC:92 : (1983) 1 SCC 177, had held that when an amendment is beneficial to the Accused it can be applied even to cases pending in Courts where such a provision did not exist at the time of the commission of offence. It was said as under:

22. It is only retroactive criminal legislation that is prohibited Under Article 20(1). The prohibition contained in Article 20(1) is that no person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of a law in force at the time of the commission of the act charged as an offence prohibits nor shall he be subjected to a penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of the commission of the offence. It is quite clear that insofar as the Central Amendment Act creates new offences or enhances punishment for a particular type of offence no person can be convicted by such ex post facto law nor can the enhanced punishment prescribed by the amendment be applicable. But insofar as the Central Amendment Act reduces the punishment for an offence punishable Under Section 16(1)(a) of the Act, there is no reason why the Accused should not have the benefit of such reduced punishment. The Rule of beneficial construction requires that even ex post facto law of such a type should be applied to mitigate the rigour of the law. The principle is based both on sound reason and common sense.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1447 of 2024.

Decided On: 07.03.2024

A.K. Sarkar & Co. and Ors. Vs. The State of West Bengal and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Sudhanshu Dhulia and P.B. Varale, JJ.

Citation: MANU/SC/0181/2024.

Print Page

Supreme Court:Amendment In Criminal Laws Beneficial To Accused Can Be Applied In Pending/Earlier Cases

We have considered the respective submissions. In

Criminal Appeal No.214 of 2006, this Court relied on a

decision in T. Barai Vs. Henry Ah Hoe and Another [(1983)

1 SCC 177] wherein it was opined that since the amendment

was beneficial to the accused persons, it could be

applied with respect to earlier cases as well which are

pending in the Court observing:

“22. It is only retroactive criminal

legislation that is prohibited under

Article 20(1). The prohibition contained

in Article 20(1) is that no person shall

be convicted of any offence except for

violation of a law in force at the time

of the commission of the act charged as

an offence prohibits nor shall he be

subjected to a penalty greater than that

which might have been inflicted under the

law in force at the time of the

commission of the offence. It is quite

clear that insofar as the Central

Amendment Act creates new offences or

enhances punishment for a particular type

of offence no person can be convicted by

such ex post facto law nor can the

enhanced punishment prescribed by the

amendment be applicable. But insofar as

the Central Amendment Act reduces the

punishment for an offence punishable

under Section 16(1)(a) of the Act, there

is no reason why the accused should not

have the benefit of such reduced

punishment. The rule of beneficial

construction requires that even ex post

facto law of such a type should be

applied to mitigate the rigour of the

law. The principle is based both on sound

reason and common sense. 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1831 OF 2010

TRILOK CHAND  Vs  STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH 

Dated:October 01, 2019

Print Page