An offence committed prior to the enactment of a statute cannot be punished under that statute unless the statute expressly provides for retrospective effect.

Usha Mehra, J. :- This petitioner was charged with three offences punishable under S. 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter called the 'Act of 1988'). The first charge against him is that he accepted gratification for providing safe passage to one Shri. Partap Singh for smuggling of gold. Secondly he agreed to provide safe passage to one Shri Charan Singh for Smuggling of weapons from Pakistan, who had a design to purchase Naka to smuggle weapons from Pakistan. Thirdly the petitioner voluntarily omitted to inform about the said design to his superior officer. Proceedings before General Security Force Court were held under the Border Security Force Act, 1968. After affording full opportunity to the petitioner, the proceeding of conviction was submitted. Authority sentenced the petitioner to suffer regorous imprisonment for four years and also dismissed from services. This sentence was confirmed by the appropriate authority. It is against this conviction and sentence that petitioner has felt aggrieved. He has approached this Court for setting aside the same.

2. In order the appreciate the challenge by the petitioner to the impugned order, we must have a quick glance to the relevant facts of this case. The petitioner, Sukhwant Singh, was working in the Border Security Force in October, 1966. In December, 1991 while serving as Junior Staff Officer (Water Wing) he was posted to perform the duties as the personal Officer of the Inspector General, Frontier Head Quarters, B.S.F. at Jammu. At the relevant time the petitioner was placed under Closed Arrest under the orders of the Inspector General, Frontier Head Quarters, B.S.F., Jammu. On 3rd December, 1991 he was taken from Jammu to new Delhi under an armed escort and from there on 4th December, 1991 to Bangalore. There he was handed over to the Commandant, S.T.C., B.S.F., Bangalore on 6th December 1991 where also he was placed under Closed Arrest on 4th and 5th January, 1992. Shri L. S. Bisht, Commandant, 33 Battalion, B.S.F. held the proceedings of Recording of Evidence (RDE) under the provisions of Rule 48 of the B.S.F. Rules, 1969, at Bangalore. Statements of the witnesses on oath were recorded. Questions were asked from the witnesses for the purpose of clarification. On the basis of the proceedings of the Record of Evidence, the said Shri L. S. Bisht on 29th January, 1992, submitted the proceedings implicating the petitioner. On the basis of RDE charge sheet was prepared. Mr. L. S. Bisht applied to the Inspector General (Head Quarters) B.S.F., under Rule 52 of the B.S.F. Rules in the prescribed form for issuing a convening order for the assembly of a General Security Force Court for the trial of the petitioner. The convincing order was issued on 3rd February 1992 for the assembly of General Security Force Court at New Delhi. This was issued on 12th February, 1992 for the purpose of trying the petitioner. As per the convincing order dated 3rd February, 1992 Shri L. S. Bisht, Commandant who had earlier presided over and conducted the proceedings of the recording of evidence at Bangalore was appointed as a prosecutor to prosecute the petitioner during the trial of the case before the General Security Force Court.

3. Mr. Dinesh Mathur, Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner besides assailing the order of conviction and sentence has also challenged the procedure adopted by the respondent in prosecuting the petitioner. From this arguments following points emerge for consideration, namely :

1. Whether the offence which was allegedly committed in March, 1986, can it be covered under the provision of S. 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2. Whether the said Shri L. S. Bisht, who held the proceeding and recorded ROE could preside as prosecutor. Will it amount to taking undue advantage of the material facts which were in his personal knowledge while recording the ROE ?

3. Whether on the basis of uncorroborated testimony petitioner could be punished ?

4.