JUDGMENT - J.N. PATEL, J.:The petitioner seeks quashing of his prosecution for having committed offences under sections 17, 19 and 43 of the Maharashtra Raw Cotton (Procurement, Processing and Marketing) Act, 1971 (for short Raw Cotton Act). 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is an agriculturist and cotton grower and owns agricultural land in Tahsil Arvi, District Wardha. The petitioner was transporting the raw cotton on 24-11-1995 in a Truck No. MTV 7161 to Pandhurna; the truck was intercepted by police at a distance of 6 k.m. from Talegaon on National Highway No. 6 and the police seized the cotton and registered offence vide Crime No. 786/94 against the petitioner for having committed offences under sections 17, 19 and 43 of the Raw Cotton Act at Police Station, Arvi. The raw cotton seized by the police came to be sold to the Maharashtra State Co-operative Cotton Growers Federation, Arvi after obtaining orders from the trial Court and the sale proceeds were deposited in the Court and charge-sheet against the petitioner and three others came to be filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Arvi which came to be registered as Criminal Case No. 1034/95. 3. The petitioner applied for discharge from the case on the ground that the petitioner has not committed any offence under the Raw Cotton Act in view of the Maharashtra Ordinance II published in Government Gazette dated 18-1-1995. The learned Magistrate by order dated 13-10-1995 rejected the application on the ground that at this stage it is not proper to discharge the accused, because the trial is necessary. It is this order, which is impugned before this Court. 4. Mr. The learned Magistrate by order dated 13-10-1995 rejected the application on the ground that at this stage it is not proper to discharge the accused, because the trial is necessary. It is this order, which is impugned before this Court. 4. Mr. Bapat, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that by virtue of Maharashtra Ordinance II of 1995 dated 18-1-1995 the Maharashtra Raw Cotton (Procurement, Processing and Marketing) Act, 1971 came to be revived w.e.f. 1-7-1994 as the said Act has lapsed on 30-6-1994 and though the Ordinance revived the said Act with retrospective effect the savings clause in the Ordinance provides that nothing in the Ordinance shall render any person liable to be convicted of any offence in respect of anything done by him or anything omitted to be done by him, during the period commencing on the 1st day of July, 1994 and ending on the date of publication of this Ordinance in the Official Gazette, if such act or omission was not an offence; but for the retrospective extension of duration of the principal Act by this Ordinance. It is therefore, submitted that on the date the police intercepted the truck which was carrying the cotton belonging to the petitioner i.e. on 24-1-1994; the Raw Cotton Act was not in force and by virtue of the saving clause of the Ordinance the petitioner has not committed any offence and therefore, the respondent-State have committed an illegality in causing seizure of the cotton belonging to the petitioner and prosecuting him for offences under sections 17, 19 and 43 of the Raw Cotton Act. 5. Mr. Bapat, submits that the learned Magistrate failed to appreciate this fact that as the petitioner has not committed any offence, there was no question of holding a trial in the case and force the petitioner to undergo the agony of the criminal trial and then acquit him. It is submitted that the learned Magistrate ought not to have taken cognizance of the police report in view of the Ordinance and discharged the petitioner. 6. Mr. It is submitted that the learned Magistrate ought not to have taken cognizance of the police report in view of the Ordinance and discharged the petitioner. 6. Mr. Bapat submits that the petitioner has suffered irreparable loss due to wrongful prosecution by the State; though the police were aware that on the date of occurrence when the police intercepted the truck and seized the cotton they have taken law in their hands and filed a charge-sheet against the petitioner for having committed offences under the Raw Cotton Act which was not in force. Mr. Bapat submits on behalf of the petitioner that in such case the Court can exercise its inherent jurisdiction and also direct the State to compensate to the petitioner for undue harassment at the hands of the police and loss of property by wrongful seizure and the fact that the petitioner was deprived of his property for all these years 1994, 1995, 1996 and pray that in addition to the relief of discharge, the State should also be directed to compensate the petitioner for seizing the cotton belonging to the petitioner under the Raw Cotton Act which had already lapsed on 30-6-1994 which was nothing less than flagrant abuse of process of Court. 7. The learned A.P.P. submits that the police has prosecuted the petitioner under the erroneous belief that the Raw Cotton Act was in force and filed charge-sheet against the petitioner when the petitioner could not have been so prosecuted. Therefore, petitioner will have to be discharged. 8. The learned A.P.P. submits that Ordinance II of 1995 published on 18-1-1995 in Maharashtra Gazette though revived the Raw Cotton Act w.e.f. 30-6-1994, it clearly provides for exemption from prosecution, during the period commencing from 1-7-1994 till 18-1-1995 under its savings clause and therefore even if the Act was revived by the Ordinance the petitioner could not have been challenged and prosecuted for having committed an offence under sections 17, 19 and 43 of the Raw Cotton Act. 9. The learned A.P.P. submits that there appears to be bona fide mistake on the part of the police in initiating action against the petitioner and causing seizure of the cotton belonging to petitioner and prosecuting him for having committed offences under the Raw Cotton Act and therefore the prayer of the petitioner to compensate him cannot be granted. 10. The facts of the case are not in dispute. 10. The facts of the case are not in dispute. The petitioner's cotton came to be seized by the P.S.I. Madhukar Sawant of Police Station, Arvi at 22.45 on 21-11-1994 when the petitioner and the co-accused were found carrying 40-45 quintals of cotton belonging to the petitioner in the Truck bearing No. MTG 7161. The Police Officer after seizure of the cotton, obtained orders of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, for disposal of the property and sold it to the Maharashtra State Cotton Federation, Arvi and the sale proceeds were credited with the Government. According to the charge-sheet the Police Officer also obtained the permission of the Government to file proceeding against the accused persons on 6-7-1995 and charge-sheet under Raw Cotton Act came to be filed on 10-7-1995. Admittedly on the date of seizure of the cotton belonging to the petitioner by the police the Raw Cotton Act was not in force; it had already lapsed on 30-6-1994 and therefore, the petitioner had not committed any offence in transporting the cotton, which according to him he was carrying it to Pandhurna. Even there was no such restriction in force, which could have prohibited the petitioner from disposing of the raw cotton owned by him outside the State of Maharashtra and therefore, the facts of the case do not constitute any offence alleged to be committed by the petitioner. It is really a matter of concern, that in spite of this being state of affairs, the State granted permission to the Police Officer to file charge-sheet on 6-7-1995. 11. The Ordinance II of 1995 which came to be published in Maharashtra Official Government Gazette on 18-1-1995 was with an object to extend the duration of the Maharashtra Raw Cotton (Procurement, Processing and Marketing) Act, 1971 with retrospective effect and though the Ordinance was published on 18-1-1995 it provided that it shall be deemed to have come into force w.e.f. 30-6-1994 which was the date on which the Raw Cotton Act came to an end and the Government found it expedient to extend it further with retrospective duration of the Act for one year immediately so that the scheme under the Act would continue to operate to the benefit of the cotton growers. Clause 3 which is savings clause of the Ordinance, provides as under: “Nothing in this Ordinance shall render any person liable to be convicted of any offence in respect of anything done by him or anything omitted to be done by him, during the period commencing on the 1st day of July, 1994 and ending on the date of publication of this Ordinance in the Official Gazette, if such act or omission was not an offence but for the retrospective extension of duration of the Principal Act by this Ordiance.” 12. The savings clause in the Ordinance is in consonance with Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India which sets two limitations upon the law making power of every legislative authority in India as regards the retrospective criminal legislation. It prohibits—(i) the making of ex post facto criminal law i.e. making an act a crime for the first time and then making that law retrospective; (ii) the infliction of a penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted under the law which was in force when the act was committed. The principle is that no one shall be punished for an act, which was not an offence under the penal law in force, when it was committed. Therefore, on 21-11-1994 the transportation of the raw cotton (even if the prosecution case is accepted) outside the State of Maharashtra for sale was not an offence under the Raw Cotton Act as the Raw Cotton Act was not in existence after 30-6-1994, but came to be revived by the Ordinance which was promulgated and published on 18-1-1995 and came into existence on the said date and therefore, there was no legal authority vested in the police to have seized the raw cotton under the Raw Cotton Act and prosecute the petitioner. 13. Sections 43 and 44 of the Raw Cotton Act provides for offence, and cognizance of offence. Clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 44 provides that all offences punishable under this Act shall be cognizable and bailable. Previous sanction of the State Government is required before the Court take cognizance of any offence punishable under the said Act. 13. Sections 43 and 44 of the Raw Cotton Act provides for offence, and cognizance of offence. Clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 44 provides that all offences punishable under this Act shall be cognizable and bailable. Previous sanction of the State Government is required before the Court take cognizance of any offence punishable under the said Act. The maxim “Ignorantia juris neminem excusat” which means ignorance of the law excuses no man is squarely applicable to meet the plea of the learned A.P.P. on behalf of State that the Police Officer have acted in the erroneous belief that the Raw Cotton Act was in force at the relevant time, well it is like raising a plea of 'nescience'. Not only police has arrested the petitioner and others but they have also seized raw cotton and filed charge-sheet after obtaining necessary sanction which appears to have been granted without any application of mind as to the fact whether the Raw Cotton Act is in force or not. Even the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the police report and refuse to dismiss the case though his attention was drawn to the fact that no offence is committed as set out in the report. The learned Magistrate ought to have straightway dismissed the case on the ground that no offence has been committed by the accused before him and therefore he cannot take cognizance of the police report under section 190(1)(b), Criminal Procedure Code. Therefore, the State can have no justification for registering the offence against the petitioner and others, in the facts of the case, when there was no such penal law in existence which could have authorised them to do so. Mr. Bapat, the learned Counsel for the petitioner is right in making an earnest prayer to this Court, that in exercise of its inherent powers the Court should see that if there is abuse of process of Court by Police Officer in causing arrest of petitioner and illegal seizure of his raw cotton produce because of which the petitioner suffered loss of property and prosecution, the State has to be called upon to compensate him. 14. Mr. 14. Mr. Bapat submitted that so far as the compensation is concerned, the petitioner is otherwise entitled for exemplary damages, but he would only claim interest at the bank rate and expenses incurred by the petitioner for facing the prosecution in the Magistrate's Court and moving this Court in order to seek justice. The learned A.P.P. has nothing to say in the matter. This Court finds that merely quashing the prosecution and discharging the petitioner would not be sufficient in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. The officials of the State are expected to abide by the law and enforce its law strictly, in accordance with the powers vested in them and cannot have a casual approach in the matter particularly when they are dealing with the liberty of a citizen and his property as the State does not get any right to deprive the citizen of his liberty as well as his property unless it is in accordance with the procedure established by law. Before a person is deprived of his life of personal liberty the officials of the State should be aware of and sure that they are exercising their powers of arrest and seizure under a well defined law which vests in them such powers and they should act in strict conformity as otherwise it will only result in contravening the fundamental rights of a citizen. In prosecuting the petitioner, the respondent State has not only conducted itself in a negligent manner, but have also infringed the fundamental rights of the petitioner which is guaranteed to him under Articles 20(1) and 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner was deprived of the fruits of his produce, which he could have immediately received after sale of the raw cotton which was grown by him. The petitioner being agriculturist deserves to be compensated by the respondents as this will serve ends of justice. 15. This Court is of the view the petitioner should be given compensation by calculating it on the basis of interest @ 12% p.a. on the price of cotton, the petitioner could fetch in November, 1994 by selling cotton, till the said amount is received by him as in the present case the cotton has been sold to the federation and it has fetched Rs. 1,72,800/-. 1,72,800/-. A rough calculation of interest @ 12% p.a. for a period of 15 months considering the fact that this Court permitted to the petitioner withdraw the amount of sale proceeds by its order dated 29-2-1996; would come to Rs. 25,900/- and the expenses incurred by the petitioner in facing the prosecution before the learned Magistrate and for prosecuting this application in the High Court which would include the lawyer's fees. In my view the sum of Rs. 30,000/- would be quite reasonable. The Court therefore, quash and set aside the charge-sheet and the prosecution pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Arvi in Criminal Case No. 1234/95 and discharge the petitioner. The Court directs the State to pay a sum of Rs. 30,000/- to the petitioner within a period of 4 weeks from the date of this order. It will be open for the respondent-State to recover the said amount from its officers who are guilty of giving sanction and prosecuting the petitioner in utter disregard to the rule of law. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. Order accordingly. -----