ORDER The accused in Sessions Case No.184 of 1987 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Chidambaram, is the petitioner. 2. On a final report filed by the respondent for an offence under Sec.304-B of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioner was committed to take his trial before the Assistant Sessions Judge, Chidambaram and after going through the records and hearing counsel a charge was framed by the trial Court on 23.12.1987 against the petitioner under Sec.304 B, I.P.C. The First Information Report was registered on 30.12.1986 at the instance of the father of the deceased Uma alias Umaiyal, in Crime No.175 of 1986 on the file of the Oomangalam Police Station for an offence under Sec.498-A of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The charge framed reads as follows: “The marriage between you and Umaiyal took place on 3.2.1984 and within a period of 7 years i.e. on 3.11.1986 Umaiyal had died otherwise than due to natural causes (by consuming SPASMA PROXYVAN) and before such death you had inflicted cruelty on her by pestering her to get dowry from her parents and this being a dowry death you are punishable under Sec.304-B, Indian Penal Code.” Mr.S.Shanmugavelayutham, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner brings to my notice that Sec.304-B, I.P.C. was put in the statute book on 19.11.1986 whereas the offence in this case is alleged to have been committed on 3.11.1986. According to him the charge framed cannot be maintained since this penal provision was not in existence when the alleged offence is said to have been committed and that a penal provision can have no retrospective effect. 4. Mr.T.Munirathinam Naidu, appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that though Sec.304-B, Indian Penal Code was introduced on 19.11.1986, yet in view of the fact that on the date when the charge sheet was filed Sec.304-B, I.P.C., had been introduced, the prosecution has to be still sustained. Further it is contended, that an offence under Sec.498-A, I.P.C. is however disclosed, on the material placed. 5. When it is very clear that Sec.304-B, Indian Penal Code was not in the Statute Book on 3.11.1986, i.e.. the date of the alleged commission of the offence, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner will have to be upheld. Further it is contended, that an offence under Sec.498-A, I.P.C. is however disclosed, on the material placed. 5. When it is very clear that Sec.304-B, Indian Penal Code was not in the Statute Book on 3.11.1986, i.e.. the date of the alleged commission of the offence, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner will have to be upheld. According to Art.20(1) of the Constitution of India, 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, 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. The latter part of the Article will not be attracted, but the former part fully comes into operation. Therefore, the penal provision can have no retrospective effect. It is too difficult to accept the proposition put forward by the counsel for the respondent in view of my reasoning aforementioned. The charge framed by the trial Court has to be necessarily quashed and is accordingly quashed. 6. However, in view of the second contention of the counsel for the respondent, I am remitting the matter back to the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Chidambaram, South Arcot District to act in accordance with the Secs.227 and 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the material placed before him and dispose of the case in accordance with law. This petition is allowed with observations. B.S. ----- Petition allowed.