ORDER (ORAL) In this Revision Petition, the petitioner has sought quashment of order dated 28-12-2012, passed by the Court of learned Sub Judge – Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jammu (hereinafter referred to as Court below), in a complaint titled State through Senior Drug Inspector, Jammu v. S. K. Khanna and others under File No. 57/Complaint. 2. The facts, those stem out from the aforesaid petition, are that a criminal complaint under Drugs & Cosmetics Act 1940 (hereinafter referred to as Act of 1940) came to be filed/instituted against the respondents after analysis and testing of the samples of the drug in question, lifted from the premises of Provincial Medical Stores were found to be not of standard quality as defined under the Act of 1940 and consequently, the respondents were alleged to have committed offences u/s 18 (a) (i), 18 (c) read with section 27 of the Act of 1940 and that upon institution of the aforesaid complaint by the petitioner before the Court below, summons were issued to the respondents for causing their appearance, in consequence whereof, they appeared before the Court below. Perusal of the petition reveals that the petitioner as also the respondents led their respective evidences in the matter and that the complaint remained pending before the Court below on account of delay purportedly having been caused by the absence of the respondents, who had sought off and on exemption after exemption from personal appearance. Perusal of the petition would further reveal that due to the nature of official duties rendered by the petitioner, on three occasions, he could not cause appearance as complainant before the Court below, as a consequence whereof, the Court below dismissed the complaint for non prosecution vide order dated 28-12-2012. 3. The said order being impugned in the petition and is challenged inter alia on the ground that it has been passed by the Court below against the canons of law, as such is not tenable and that the Court below instead of dismissing the complaint for non-appearance/non-prosecution of the complainant, could have dispensed with his personal appearance in view of proviso appended to Section 247 of Cr. PC and that the Court below instead of dismissing the complaint could have proceeded with the trial of the case taking into account nature of the offences committed by the respondents under the Act, being against public health and serious in nature. 4. PC and that the Court below instead of dismissing the complaint could have proceeded with the trial of the case taking into account nature of the offences committed by the respondents under the Act, being against public health and serious in nature. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents, seeks dismissal of the revision petition on a preliminary objection urging that the criminal revision is not maintainable on the premise that dismissal of complaint for non prosecution, in essence, amounts to acquittal of the accused respondent in terms of section 256 Cr. PC and that the Criminal Revision, per se, is not remedy against such an acquittal. Reliance in this regard is being placed on Kalpana Tyagi vs. Sneh Lata Sharma, 2003 Cr. LJ 3395 of Delhi High Court. In response to the aforesaid preliminary objection, the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the same is misplaced as also misdirected in view of sub section 5 of section 401 Cr. PC where under an application for revision can be treated as a petition of appeal where High Court is satisfied that such revision has been filed under an erroneous belief. The learned counsel for the petitioner would next contend that, in fact, the aforesaid Revision Petition was filed in the year 2012 and that under a bona fide mistake, the then Drug Inspector, without having any legal background, had filed the same purportedly in view of the fact that there was no acquittal recorded by the Court below while dismissing the complaint in question for non-prosecution and that the revisional power has been invoked in the present petition, being a supervisory power exercisable by superior Courts to correct illegality of the Courts below or to rectify the manifest injustice. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would next contend that otherwise also the proceedings before the Court below w.e.f. 10-08-2009 including the impugned order are legally not sustainable being without jurisdiction, in that, on 10-08-2009 an amendment had been carried out in Sec. 32 (2) of the Act, whereby offences under Chapter IV of the Act provide to be tried by a Court of Sessions. Learned counsel thus, in view, of the above would submit that this Court as such, has to display indulgence not only under revisional jurisdiction but under inherent powers as well for the reason the proceedings conducted by the Court below after 10-08-2009 including order passed on 28-12-2012 are irregular, illegal, without jurisdiction and also abuse of process of the Court. 6. Confronted with this plea raised by learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondents would contend that notwithstanding the coming into being of amendment of Section 32 (2) of the Act, trial Court conducted the trial/proceedings as also passed the order under challenge validly and legally, in that, the said amendment not being applicable to the case in question before the trial Court, as in law, every amendment has to be treated as prospective unless specifically is given retrospective effect. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record of the Court below. 8. Applicability or otherwise of amendment carried out in Sec. 32 (2) of the Act, to the trial of the case before Court below is a fundamental issue required to be addressed only and in presence of the said point/issue, aforesaid preliminary objections raised by the learned counsel for the respondents and response thereto submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner pales into insignificance. Under these circumstances this Court would determine the question of applicability or otherwise of the aforesaid amended provision viz. Section 32(2) to the case and for the purpose intend to take recourse to revisional as well as inherent powers. Section 32(2) is for convenience and brevity extracted hereunder: “Save as otherwise provided in this Act, no Court inferior to that of a Court of Sessions shall try an offence punishable under this Chapter.” 9. A bare perusal of the aforesaid provision manifestly demonstrates that the Court of Sessions to try an offence permissible under Chapter IV of the Act which chapter includes offences alleged to have been committed by the respondents. As has been said hereinabove the aforesaid amendment has come into existence on 10-08-2009 and perusal of the record of the Court below would reveal that the proceedings continued to be conducted by the Court below up to the passing of the impugned order dated 28-12-2012. 10. As has been said hereinabove the aforesaid amendment has come into existence on 10-08-2009 and perusal of the record of the Court below would reveal that the proceedings continued to be conducted by the Court below up to the passing of the impugned order dated 28-12-2012. 10. The aforesaid amendment carried out in Sec. 32(2) of the Act, relates only to the change of forum and cannot be said to be invasion of any of the rights of the respondents. Law being settled on this point that where there is a change in law of forum or procedure, it operates retrospectively unless otherwise specifically provided for. Reliance in this regard can safely be placed on Hitendra Vishnu Thakur vs. State of Maharashtra, 1994 Vol. 04 SCC Page 602 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court illustrated principles for determination of a question as to when Amendment Act operates retrospectively. It would be advantageous to reproduce the said principles; “(i) A statute which affects substantive rights is presumed to be prospective in operation unless made retrospective, either expressly or by necessary intendment, whereas a statute which merely affects procedure, unless such a construction is textually impossible, is presumed to be retrospective in its application, should not be given an extended meaning and should be strictly confined to its clearly defined limits. (ii) Law relating to forum and limitation is procedural in nature, whereas law relating to right of action and right of appeal even though remedial is substantive in nature. (iii) Every litigant has a vested right in substantive law but not such right exists in procedural law. (iv) A procedural stature should not be generally speaking be applied retrospectively where the result would be to create new disabilities of obligations or to impose new duties in respect of transactions already accomplished. (v) A statute which not only changes the procedure but also creates new rights and liabilities shall be construed to be prospective in operation, unless otherwise provided, either expressly or by necessary implication.” 11. (v) A statute which not only changes the procedure but also creates new rights and liabilities shall be construed to be prospective in operation, unless otherwise provided, either expressly or by necessary implication.” 11. Upon considering the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, and analyzing the facts, circumstances and legal position in this regard particularly the principles enunciated by the Apex Court in the Judgment Supra, this Court is of the view, that the amendment in Sec. 32(2) dated 10-08-2009 would be applicable to the case (complaint) before the Court below as the said amendment essentially relates only to the change of forum or course of procedure and respondents cannot claim any vested right thereof. Viewed thus, the Court below admittedly has acted without jurisdiction, illegally and irregularly abusing process of Court in the matter after 10-08-2009 and the fall out of which is that entire proceedings conducted after 10-08-2009 by the trial court including passing of impugned order dated 28-12-2012 do not sustain in law, as such, liable to be quashed. Hence are quashed. Resultantly the record of the case is required to be returned back to the trial Court which shall proceed in the matter in the light of the observations made hereinabove, as also in accordance with relevant provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure occupying the field. Parties to appear before the trial Court on 15th July, 2020. Disposed of.