A.

EX-POST FACTO LAWS

[Article 20(1)]
An "ex-post facto law" a law which is enacted
is
to some
occurrence, i.e., the commission of some act or omission. subsequent
E-post facto laws72
are of following three kinds73
G) a law, which declares some act or omission, as an
offence, for the
first time after the completion of that act or omission.
ii) a law, which enhances the punishment or an
penalty for offence,
subsequent to the commission of that offence.
(i) a law, which prescribes a new and different procedure for the
prosecution of an offence, subsequent to the commission
of that
offence.
of Article 20 provides protection only in
Clause (1)
respect of the above
first two categories of ex-post facto laws.

Article 20(1)provides: "Noperson shall be conuicted of any offence except

for violation of a law in force at the time of the commission of the act
charged
subjected to a penalty greater than that which might
as an offènce, nor be
have been inflicted under the law in
force at the time of the commission of
the offence."

Under Clause (1) of Article 20 what is prohibited is "the conviction"

and "sentence"in criminal proceedings under ex post facto law.74 This Clause
incorporates the rule that Ex facie, a penal Statute will not have
any
retrospective effect or retrospective
operation.75
Undoubtedly, in a governed by rule of law, the
civilized society,
Punishment not prescribed under the statutory rules, cannot be imposed.
ns principle of criminal jurisprudence, to this effect, is prescribed in legal

ulla poena sine lege", which means that a person should not be
11.
M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra, AIR 1954 SC 300.
72. See ransmission Corporation Ch. Prabhakar, AIR 2004 SC 3368.
of A.P. v.
73.
Wills in his classification
nes "Constitutional Law of the United States" makes a lucid
he
G) wh
penal laws which are ex post
facto, as follows
ney make criminal an act which was innocent when done;
it was
it was when committed,
(i) when ney make a crime greater than was at the time
they make the punishment greater than the punishment
he act
was committed, of a
(iv)
when they a defendant
as to deprive
change the rule of evidence
Substantive right,
(v)
when
and
for an offence which
are Ou a
they qualifications
Oper evo
14.proper make retrospective
exerciseof the
police power.
nder
75.Ravind
See
268.
Rite
Singh
itesh
Ag
v.
v. State of H.P, AIR 2010
Securities Exechange&
SC 199.
Board of India,
AIR 2008 SC (Supp.
 9
made to suffer penalty except for a clear breach of existing law 76
The various ingredients of Article 20(1) are discussed hol.
below-
(a) Law declaring an 'offence' subsequent to the he commissi
of the 'act' commission
The part of Clause (1) of Article 20 relates to the first
first
gory of
ex-post facto laws. It says that "no person shall be convictedted of any
any
except for violation of a law in force at the time of the commission of theence
a
charged as an offence". It explains that
"offence" if the charge against him is an
a person can only be convicted
"offence" under the "lauw inforcan
the time of the commission of that act.
It constitutional recognition to the rule that
seems to give no one can
be convicted except for the violation of a "law in force"
Article 20(1) incorporates the principle that "a penal statute
which
creates new offences is always prospective and a person can be punished for
an offence committed by him, in accordance with law as it existed on the date
on which an offence was committed.""
It is held to be against the principles of natural justice to
permit the
subjects of a State to be punished or penalized by laws of which they had
no knowledge and of which they could not even, with exercise of due diligence
have acquired any knowledge."3
Law enhancing
the
'offence'
penalty subsequent to the commission of
I trite law that "the sentence imposable
on the date of commission
300
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA IChap. 9
of the offence has to determine the sentence imposable on completion oftrial"
This proposition is brought out by a bare reading of Article 20(1),89
Second part of Clause (1) of Article 20 prohibits the enhancement of
punishment or penalty subsequently. It provides that "no person shall "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."
In Kedar Nath v. State of West Bengal,0 the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1947 provided punishment of imprisonment as well as fine for offences
committed under the Act. The accused, managing agents of a company
committed an offence in 1947. Subsequently in 1949, the Criminal Law
(Special Courts) Amendment Act, 1949, amended the Prevention of Corruption
Act. The amended law enhanced the penalty for the offences committed under
the Act by an additional fine to be equivalent to "the amount of money found
to have been procured by the offender through the offence committed by him".
It was held that the enhanced punishment prescribed by the amended law,
which came into force in 1949, could not be imposed on the accused for the
offence committed in 1947, because of the prohibition contained in the second
part of Clause (1) of Article 20.
It may be that Article 20(1) prohibits the enhancement of
noted
punishment or penalty for an offence retrospectively. It does not prevent
the prescription of a minimum sentence of fine where the law, in forece,
does not prescribe any such limitation.91
 (c)
Beneficial ex-post facto laws
of enhanced penalty or
Article 20(1) prohibits the imposition
hCle in the punishment. Thus, an
nt. it does not bar any reduction
erpoe But of a criminal law, does not
-post facto law, which only mollified the rigour
wito
lall
all law,
within thepr
prohibition ofArticle 20(1).99 m 10A1
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA Chap. 9
302

the accused, a boy of 16 years of

In Rattan Lal v. State of Punjab,'
and outraging
age, was convicted for committing the offence ofhouse trespass
the modesty of a girl of seven years.
The Magistrate imposed on him rigorous
for six months and also the fine. While the accused was
imprisonment
the Probation of Offenders Act,
undergoing the sentence of imprisonment,
1958, came into force, which provided that a person below the age of 21 years
should not ordinarily be sentenced to imprisonment. The accused invoked the
provision of the Act and pleaded that he might be given the benefit of the
Act, a reformative measure. The State contended that the Act in question
being an ex-post facto law could not be pleaded by the accused. The Supreme
Court, however, held that the ex-post facto law which was beneficial to the
accused did not fall within the prohibition of Article 20(1). The Court laid

down that the rule of beneficial construction required that an ex-post facto
law could be applied to reduce the
punishment.