1. Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally.

2. The applicant was prosecuted vide RCC No. 649/2008 on the allegation that he had committed an offence punishable under section 174A of the Indian Penal Code. It was alleged that the petitioner was an accused in RCC No.913/1999 which was in respect of an offence punishable under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. That, the petitioner did not remain present before the trial court in that case inspite of the fact that a proclamation requiring him to remain present was issued by the Trial Court as contemplated under section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Magistrate, after holding a trial, convicted the petitioner of an offence punishable under section 174A of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, but further directed that instead of sending the petitioner to prison, he be released on his executing a bond of Good Behaviour as contemplated under section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. The petitioner challenged the order of his conviction by filing an appeal before the Court of Sessions which was allowed by setting aside the order of conviction, but directing, in effect, a retrial of the petitioner. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court by filing present petition.

3. A number of contentions have been raised by Mr. A.K. Bhosale, the learned counsel for the petitioner about the legality, propriety and correctness of the findings arrived at by the Magistrate, as well as by the Court of Sessions. A number of contentions are also raised about the propriety of the procedure adopted by the learned Magistrate as well as the Court of Sessions. I find great substance in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner in that regard, but in the view that I am taking, it is not necessary to discuss those contentions. It is because the petition is bound to succeed on a more fundamental and clear point.

4. Section 174A has been inserted in the Indian Penal Code by Act 25 of 2005. It was brought in force with effect from 23.6.2006.

5. The allegation against the petitioner was that he had committed an offence punishable under section 174A of the Indian Penal Code on or about 13.6.2005. In other words, the offence allegedly committed by the petitioner is said to have been taken place before Section 174A of the Indian Penal Code was brought in force.

6. Prosecution of the petitioner with respect to an offence which was not in force at the time when he is alleged to have committed the act/acts constituting the same, is in plain violation of the provisions of Article 20 (1) of the Constitution of India. Article 20 (1) makes it clear that no person shall be convicted of an offence except for the violation of the law in force at the time of the commission of the act charged as an offence. Since the act of failing to appear in obedience to the proclamation is alleged to have taken place on or about 13.6.2005, and since this act has been made punishable with effect from 23.6.2006, it was plain that the entire prosecution of the petitioner with respect to the alleged offence was patently illegal and in violation of the Constitutional guarantee afforded by Article 20.

7. In fact, this aspect was pointed out to the Court of Sessions also but, still it directed a retrial to be held. The view of the Court of Sessions was that, certain documents on which the prosecution had based its case, had not been proved properly and in accordance with law, during the trial. Thus, though according to the Court of Sessions, the case against the petitioner had not been satisfactorily proved, instead of passing an order of acquittal on this count, it directed a retrial to be held, which was not proper. There were no circumstances justifying a retrial to be held. Nothing prevented the prosecution from proving the do