A. PASAYAT, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER's challenge to legality of cognizance taken by learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bolangir (in short, the SDJM) having been repelled by learned Sessions Judge, Bolangir. This application has been filed under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, 'cr. P. C. ') for interference. ( 2 ) BACKGROUND facts giving rise to the application as portrayed by the petitioner are as follows: First Information Report was lodged on 1. 1. 1990, by one B. K. Mohanty, Circle Inspector, Sadar, Bolangir alleging Commission of offences by petitioner punishable under Secs. 379 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short IPC ). On the basis of that information P. S. Case No. 1/90 corresponding to G. R. Case No. 3/90 was registered. Allegation was that in course of search of petitioners house he was found to be in possession of precious stones weighing 7. 41 Kgs. Petitioner could not produce any authority for such possession. After completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted. Learned SDJM by order dated 29. 6. 1990 took cognizance of offence punishable under Sec. 379, and in the alternative under Sec. 411, I. P. C. Petitioner questioned correctness of the order before learned Sessions Judge, Bolangir which was registered as Criminal Revision No. 103/5 of 1990-91. Learned Addi. Sessions Judge by order dated 15. 1. 1992 accepted prayer for revision, set aside the order dated 29. 6. 1990 taking cognizance of offences punishable under Secs. 379 and 411, I. P. C. , but left it open to learned SDJM to pass necessary order about disposal of property if no complaint is filed within a reasonable period under provisions Of Orissa Minerals (Prevention of Theft, Smuggling and Other Unlawful Activities) Act, 1989 (in short, the Act) read with provisions of Cr. P. C. It was observed that there was no material to reveal that out of whose possession precious stones had been stolen to make out a case under Sec. 379, I. P. C. and there was no material to show that movable articles had been removed from out of possession of another. P. C. It was observed that there was no material to reveal that out of whose possession precious stones had been stolen to make out a case under Sec. 379, I. P. C. and there was no material to show that movable articles had been removed from out of possession of another. So far as applicability of Sec. 411 is concerned, it was observed that there was no prima facie material to show articles possessed by petitioner was stolen property, and there was also no material to show that articles were removed from possession of another person. In essence, it was concluded that there was no material to show that petitioner either committed theft or was in possession of stolen property. Stand of prosecution was that allegation levelled against petitioner made out an offence under the Act, and learned Addi. Sessions Judge accepted this plea and observed that material on record prima facie revealed that petitioner had committed on offence punishable under Sec. 12, read with Sec. 4 of the Act. But taking note of Sec. 14 of the Act which puts an embargo in taking cognizance on police report, and provides that Court can taken cognizance on the basis of complaint filed by police not below than the rank of Sub-Inspector or any person authorised in this behalf by the Government. Since report was filed by Sub-Inspector, cognizance could not have been taken in respect of offence punishable under the Act. In the aforesaid background, it was observed that Sub-Inspector would file a complaint in accordance with law within time limit. Petitioner submits that after having held that order taking cognizance was not legal, a direction should have been given for return of seized property to the petitioner, instead of directing further action. ( 3 ) LEARNED SDJM on receipt of prosecution report under Sec. 12 read with Sec. 4 of the Act registered a case numbered as U. C. No. 136 of 1992, took cognizance of offence punishable under Sec. 12 read with Sec. 4 of the Act by order dated4. 6. 1992. Reference was made to the earlier orders passed by learned SDJM and learned Addi. Sessions Judge. Direction was given to tag records of previous GR case to the case instituted on the basis of prosecution report. 6. 1992. Reference was made to the earlier orders passed by learned SDJM and learned Addi. Sessions Judge. Direction was given to tag records of previous GR case to the case instituted on the basis of prosecution report. Petitioner questioned legality of said order before learned Sessions Judge stating that the Act itself had not come into existence when alleged offence took place it was stated that the Act was brought into force by State Government on 20. 5. 1990 under Notification published in Orissa Gazette Extraordinary No. 636 dated 16. 5. 1990, as required under Sec. 13 of the Act. Learned Sessions Judge did not consider this plea to be tenable and held those aspects could be considered at the time of framing of charge, and at the time of hearing of the case. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that when the Act itself was not in existence when the alleged occurrence took place, question of taking cognizance of offence punishable under a particular provision under the Act and to proceed against the petitioner is indefensible. Learned counsel for State on the other hand, submitted that aspects now highlighted by petitioner can be considered at the time of framing charge and during trial, as rightly observed by learned Addi. Sessions Judge. ( 4 ) UNAUTHORISED possession of precious stones is governed under the Act which was published in the Official Gazette on 29. 11. 1989. As the alleged occurrence took place on 31. 12. 1989, the Act was not in force. Under Sec. 4 of the Act, possession of precious stones is prohibited. Sec. 12 provides that a person who fails to comply with or contravenes any of the provisions commits an offence. Secs. 4 and 12 of the Act read as follows: Sec. 4-Restriction on possession, storage, etc. on minerals: No person shall (i) possess, store, sell, trade in or Other wise deal with any mineral, except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a licence; or (ii) transport or remove any mineral from any place except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a permit. on minerals: No person shall (i) possess, store, sell, trade in or Other wise deal with any mineral, except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a licence; or (ii) transport or remove any mineral from any place except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a permit. Sec. 12-Penalty : (1) Whoever fails to comply with or contravenes any of the provisions of this Act or the rules shall, on conviction, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees or with both. (2) If the failure or contravention referred to in Sub-sec. (1) continues after the date of conviction, the offender shall be punishable with an additional fine of two hundreds rupees for each day of such failure or contravention. (3) Offences under this Act shall be cognizable and non-bailable. The Act having come into force on 29. 5. 1990, much after seizure of stones, when the Act was not in force, Secs. 4 and 12 would not be attracted ipso facto. Provisions of a statute dealing merely with matters of procedure may properly, unless that construction is textually inadmissible, have retrospective effect attributed to them. It is a well-settled rule of interpretation hallowed by time and sanctioned by judicial decisions that, unless the terms of a statute expressly so provides or necessarily require it, retrospective operation should not be given to a statute so as to take away or impair an existing right or create a new obligation or impose a new liability otherwise than as regards matters of procedure. The general rule has been stated by Halsbury Laws of England, Volume 36 (3rd Edition), and by Lord Wright in Athulwanay In re, (1898) 2 Q. B. 547. When, at the time of commission of alleged Act, no prohibition or liability was attached, any subsequent enactment cannot retrospectively attach penal consequence for such Act. Art. 20 (i) of the Constitution mandates 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. The phrase Law in force as used in Art. 20 must be understood in its natural sense as being the law in fact in existence and in operation at the time of commission of the offence. The phrase Law in force as used in Art. 20 must be understood in its natural sense as being the law in fact in existence and in operation at the time of commission of the offence. ( 5 ) UNDER Sec. 16 of the Act stones seized are liable to be confiscated as provided therein. This is a peculiar case where order of learned Addi. Sessions Judge holding that petitioner was not to be proceeded for commission of offences punishable under Secs. 379 and 411, I. P. C. , has become final, having not been assailed by prosecution in a higher forum. Continuance of proceeding against the petitioner in the aforesaid background would be abuse of process of law. Therefore, order of cognizance passed by the learned SDJM shall not be operative so far as petitioner is concerned. ( 6 ) AN alternative prayer was made for release of seized article sin favour of petitioner. Sec. 31 of the Act provides that minerals shall be presumed to be the property of Government until the contrary is proved, and possession thereof would be in contravention of Sec. 4 of the Act, now in force. However, restriction on possession can be avoided by obtaining a licence under Sec. 6 of the Act. Sec. 21 deals with disposal of minerals on conclusions of trial. If the petitioner desires to have possession of articles seized from him, he is required to take a licence under Sec. 6. If petitioner produces a licence by the end of September, 1994 seized stones shall be handed over to him, otherwise it shall be retained with the State in view of presumption available under Sec. 31 of the Act. Almost similar direction was given by this Court in Suresh Kumar Sharma and another v. State of Orissa, on an identical circumstance. The Criminal Misc. Case is disposed of. Petition disposed of accordingly. .