Question

Given below is the statement of Legal principle followed by a factual situation. Apply the principle to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.

LEGAL PRINCIPLE: According to Article 20 (1) of the Constitution, no person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of the law in force at the time of the commission of the act charged as an offence, nor 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.
FACTUAL SITUATION: 'P' was charged with an offence punishable with imprisonment for a term of one year. The Magistrate convicted him and awarded him a punishment of one-year imprisonment. While 'P' was undergoing the sentence, the law under which 'P' was convicted came to be amended and the punishment for the offence of which 'P' was convicted was reduced to six months. The defence filed an application to the Magistrate for review of sentence and to commute it to six months. Can the application be allowed?
DECISION:

विकल्प

• No, because penal laws only have prospective application.

• No, because a penal statute cannot be given retrospective effect.

• No, since at the time of coming into force of the amended law, 'P' was already suffering the sentence and had not completed the full term. Hence, his case should not be dealt under the new law.

• Yes, because the retrospective application of criminal law, if it is beneficial to the accused, is not against Article 20 (1) of the Constitution.

Answer 1

Yes, because the retrospective application of criminal law, if it is beneficial to the accused, is not against Article 20 (1) of the Constitution.

Explanation:

The rule of beneficial construction requires that export facto law should be applied to reduce the rigorous sentence of the previous law on the same subject.  Such a law is not affected by Article 20(1). The principle is based upon the legal maxim "Salus Populi Est  Suprema Lex" which means the welfare of the people is the supreme for the law. It is inspired by principles of justice, equity and good conscience.   
In T. Baral Vs. Henry An Hoe a complaint was lodged against the respondent under Sec. 16(1)(a) on August  16, 1975, for having committed an offence punishable under sec.16(1)(a) read with sec.7 of the Prevention of  Food Adulteration Act as amended by the amending  Act of 1973. On the date of the commission of the alleged offence i.e. on 16th August 1975, the law in force in the State of West Bengal was the Amendment Act which provided that such an offence would be punishable with imprisonment for life. On 1st April 1976 enacted the Prevention of Food Adulteration (Amendment) Act,1976 which reduced the maximum punishment of life imprisonment as provided by the West  Bengal Amendment Act to 3 years imprisonment. The question for determination was whether the pending proceedings would be governed by the procedure under sec.16-A as inserted by Central Amendment Act 34  of 1976. The High Court held that the West Bengal  Amendment would be deemed to have been obliterated because of the central amendment. Confirming  the decision of the Supreme Court held:   
"Nothing really turns on the language of Section 16(1)(a)  because the Central Amendment Act has not created a  new offence thereby but dealt with the same offence. It is only retroactive criminal legislation that is prohibited under Article 20(1). It is quite clear that in so far as the central amendment Act creates new offences of enhances punishment for a particular type of offence no person shall be convicted by such ex-post-facto law nor can the enhanced punishment prescribed by the amendment be applicable. But in so far as the Central amendment Act reduces the punishment for an offence punishable under section 16(1) (a) of the Act,  there is no reasons 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. This principle is based both on sound reason and common sense. This finds support in a passage that "A retrospective Statute is different from an ex-post-facto statute".