RETROSPECTIVITY OF CRIMINAL LAW

Constitution of India provides protection against the retrospectivity of criminal

law or ex post facto laws to its citizens under the Article 20 clause 1. Under the
Article 20 (1) it is stated that, “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.” The first of the clause means that no person shall be convicted
for an act that is considered to be an offence under a law enacted in future if
the act is innocent at the time of its commission. The second part provides the
citizens protection against greater penalty that might have been inflicted
under the in force at the time of commission of the offence.
In Nirbhaya Rape Case of 2012, as the culprits were of minor age (below 18
years), they were not convicted because of the absence of law regarding trial
and punishment for minors if they involve in criminal offences. At the time
commission of the offence, no person below 18 years of age can be convicted
for any offence. Later in 2013 an amendment was introduced regarding the
same commonly known as ‘Anti Rape Bill’ under Criminal Law (Amendment
Act), 2013 that if children between the age 16 to 18 years undertake gruesome
and violent activities of murder and rape, they should be tried and punished as
adults.
Further, the instance of Soni Devrajbhai Babubhai v State of Gujarat1
dismissed the contentions of the appellants who had looked to apply the
arrangement of recently added arrangement connected with share demise
under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code to the supposed episode that
happened preceding the date of addition. In the said case, the supposed
occurrence had occurred in August 1986 and Section 304-B was authorized in
November 1986. The Court held that utilization of Section 304-B reflectively
would bring about the refusal of the assurance given under Article 21(1) of the
Constitution.
In the case of Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand2, the High Court held that for
determining the age of a juvenile, provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986
1
Soni Devrajbhai Babubhai v. State of Gujarat, (1991) 4 SCC 298: 1991 SCC (Cri) 959: AIR 1991 SC 2173
2
Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand, (2005) 3 SCC 551: 2005 SCC (Cri) 742: 2005 SCC OnLine SC 211: 2005 Cri LJ
3091: AIR 2005 SC 2731
would apply instead of the 2000 act. Section 20 of the Act says that
“notwithstanding anything contained in this Act came into force”. It means
that the proceedings in respect of a juvenile pending in any court are relatable
to the proceedings commenced before the 2000 Act came into force along
with the cases pending at the time of the introduction of the 2000 Act.
Basically. The Section 20 of the Act defines that in cases where a person is
ceased to be a juvenile under the 1986 Act but had not yet crossed the age of
18 then the pending case shall continue in the court as if the 2000 Act has not
been introduced.
In the case of West Ramnad Electric Distribution Co. Ltd. V. State of Madras3
used the expression “law in force” according to Article 20(1) which provides
that no person shall be convicted for any offence except for the violation of a
law in force at the time of the commission of the act considered as an offence.

3
West Ramnad Electric Distribution Co. Ltd. V. State of Madras, (1963) 2 SCR 747: (1964) 1 MLJ (SC) 126: AIR
1962 SC 1753