Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 435 (RAJ)

Kailash v. State of Rajasthan

2015-02-16

KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

body2015
JUDGMENT : Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. Instant petition has been preferred under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to assail the order dated 19.10.2013 passed by the Sessions judge, Jhunjhunu, whereby petitioner was charged for offence punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 (D) of Indian Penal Code and under Section 5/6 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that in the present case, occurrence pertains to 14.08.2012. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that Sections 375 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code were amended and the amendment came into operation with effect from 03.02.2013. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that the Protection of Children From Sexual Offence Act, 2012 came into force with effect from 14.11.2012. 3. Counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the amended provisions under the Indian Penal Code and the Protection of Children From Sexual Offence Act, 2012 cannot be applied retrospectively. 4. Counsel appearing for the petitioners has relied upon Article 20 (1) of the Constitution of India, which reads as under :- "(1) 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." 5. A perusal of the order passed by the trial Court reveals that the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners today has not been considered by the trial Court. 6. Consequently, the order dated 19.10.2013 passed by the trial Court is set aside and the matter is remitted to the trial Court to consider the argument raised by counsel appearing for the petitioners before this Court and pass a detailed speaking order noticing the contentions raised by counsel appearing for the petitioners and after hearing all concerned including complainant. 7. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to submit written arguments before the trial Court. 8. In view of above, the present petition stands disposed of. 9. Consequent upon disposal of main petition, the stay application, filed therewith, does not survive; the same is also disposed of.