Procedural amendments are presumed to be applicable retrospectively, and a change of forum is a procedural change, therefore the amendment would be applicable retrospectively, obviously to the pending cases.

JUDGMENT

1. By this appeal, the State of Maharashtra seeks to challenge the Judgment delivered by the learned Judicial Magistrate F.C.Sakri on 25/08/2003 in Reg.Cri.Case No.113/2002. The offence alleged to have been committed by the two accused, was punishable u/s 420, 467, 471 and 511 r/w Section 34 of the IPC. Both the respondents/ accused have been acquitted by the impugned judgment.

2. This appeal was preferred by the State of Maharashtra on 04/02/2004 u/s 378(1) of the Cr.P.C., as the provision then was. By Act 25 of 2005, an amendment was introduced to Section 378 w.e.f. 23/06/2006, vide which an order of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate in respect of a cognizable and non bailable offence was made appealable to the Court of Sessions.

3. Prior to the amendment, Section 378(1) read as under :-

"378(1) Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (2) and subject to the provisions of sub-sections (3) and (5), the State Government may, in any case, direct the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal to the High Court from an original or appellate order of acquittal passed by any Court other than a High Court or an order of acquittal passed by the Court of Session in revision."

Post amendment, Section 378(1) reads as under :-

"378. Appeal in case of acquittal - [1] Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (2), and subject to the provisions of sub-sections (3) and (5)-

(a) the District Magistrate may , in any case, direct the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal to the Court of sessions from an order of acquittal passed by a Magistrate in respect of a cognizable and non-bailable offence;

(b) the State Government may, in any case, direct the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal to the High Court from an original or appellate order of an acquittal passed by any Court other than a High Court [not being an order under clause (a)] or an order of acquittal passed by the Court of Session in revision.]"

4. By virtue of the powers of the State Government, the amendment was introduced which altered the position in law. Earlier, the State Government was empowered to direct the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal to the High Court from an original or Appellate order, of acquittal, passed by any Court, or an order of acquittal passed by the Court of Sessions in Revision proceedings.

5. The respondent/accused was charged with having committed offence punishable u/s 420, 467, 471 and 511 r/w 34 of the IPC. In so far as Section 467 is concerned, the maximum punishment is of imprisonment for life and the lesser punishment would be imprisonment for 10 years and fine. Considering Rule (II) Sub Clause (a) of Chapter I of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960, an offence which is punishable with a sentence/term of imprisonment not exceeding 10 years, would render the learned Single Judge with the jurisdiction to deal with such a case. If the offence is punishable u/s 467 with a sentence of imprisonment for life, this Court would have the jurisdiction and the appeal would lie before the learned Division Bench. We, therefore, have no hesitation in concluding that the date on which the appeal was registered in this Court, not to be mistaken to be the date on which it has been entertained by this Court, the learned Prosecutor had rightly preferred the appeal.

6. The issue before us is as regards an amendment to procedural Law and whether a litigant would have any right to oppose a change of Forum in view of an amendment to the procedural Law thereby shifting the forum from a particular Court to another Court. We are not required to look any further in view of the Law crystallized by the Hon'ble Apex court in Ramesh Kumar Soni Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2013) 14 SCC 696, wherein it was held in paragraph Nos.7, 8, 14, 19 and 21, as under :-

"7. The First Schedule to the Criminal Procedure Code 1973 classifies offences under the IPC for purposes of determining whether or not a particular offence is cognizable or non-cognizable and bailabl