JUDGMENT : Heard. 2. This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 29.09.2016 by which the respondent has been convicted in respect of offence under Section 376 of the RPC to undergo 7 years’ rigorous imprisonment as well as fine of Rs.25,000/- imposed on him and imprisonment for six months in case of default in the payment of fine. 3. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that Section 376 of the RPC was amended in the year 2014 and minimum sentence which is prescribed is 7 years, therefore, the trial Court cannot sentence the respondent for a period of 8 years as the incident was of 26.06.2010 i.e., prior to the date of amendment in Section 376 of the RPC and the said amendment does not have any retrospective effect. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Biswanath Bhattacharya v. Union of India & others, AIR 2014 SC 1003 . 4. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. It is not disputed that the incident had taken place on 26.06.2010, whereas the provisions of Section 376 were amended in the year 2014. In the aforesaid decision at Paragraph No.27, the Supreme Court has held as follow : “It is a well settled principle of constitutional law that sovereign legislative bodies can make laws with retrospective operation; and can make laws whose operation is dependent upon facts or events anterior to the making of the law. However, criminal law is excepted from such general Rule, under another equally well settled principle of constitutional law, i.e. no ex post facto legislation is permissible with respect to criminal law. Article 20 contains such exception to the general authority of the sovereign legislature functioning under the Constitution to make retrospective or retroactive laws.” 5. In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law, it is evident that the amendment made in Section 376 of the RPC does not apply retrospectively. In case of respondent, we do not find any infirmity in the judgment of the trial Court so far as the awarding of sentence to the respondent. At this stage, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that he has also filed a Criminal Appeal No.49/2016 in this Court. 6. In case of respondent, we do not find any infirmity in the judgment of the trial Court so far as the awarding of sentence to the respondent. At this stage, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that he has also filed a Criminal Appeal No.49/2016 in this Court. 6. Needless to state that the observation made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the appeal filed by the respondent. 7. With the aforesaid observation, this appeal is dismissed.