JUDGMENT :

1. Instant petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing of the impugned order dated 20.01.2020 passed by the learned court of Special Judge, Anti Corruption, West, UP., Lucknow initiated in case no. 2 of 2015 arising out of crime no. RC006/2015/A/0002 under Sections 7 & 13(2) r/w 13 (1)(d)of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act 1988').

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order was passed without considering the submissions raised on behalf of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the Prevention of Corruption Act has lastly been amended w.e.f. 26.07.2018 and Section 13(1)(d) of the Act 1988 has been substituted by Section 7 of the Act 1988. In Section 13(1)(d), the punishment provided was not less than four years but which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine, whereas by making an amendment, the punishment which has been provided under Section 7 of the Act 1988 is less than three years but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine. After the amendment in the Act, the applicant has moved an application for alteration of charge in the light of Amendment Act, 1988 since Section 13(1)(d) of the Act 1988 has been omitted and prayed for dropping of the charge under Section 13(1)(d) of the Act 1988. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment in the case of T. Barai v. Henry Ah Hoe and another reported in 1983 CRI.L.J. 164 SC on the issue if the punishment has been made lesser in the subsequent statute, the same will be applicable in the pending cases.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the CBI has submitted that there is no illegality in the order passed by the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption and has submitted that the amendment has been made vide notification dated 26.07.2018 and the same is not retrospective. In the present case, the FIR was lodged against the petitioner on 05.02.2015; the charge-sheet was filed on 20.03.2015 and the charges were framed on 08.08.2016, whereas the notification of amendment has come into effect on 26.07.2018 and the amendment has not been given retrospective effect and hence the case of the present petitioner is governed by the provisions of the Act, which was in force prior to the amendment. In support of his submission, learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Telangana v. Managipet alias Mangipet Sarveshwar Reddy reported in (2019) 19 SCC 87.

4. After hearing the learned counsels for the respective parties, it is found that the judgment relied by learned counsel for the applicant is not applicable in the present case. The facts of that case were different and the issue before the Apex Court was with regard to the repugnancy between the State law and the Union law and the question to be decided was which law will prevail and the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adultration Act was under challenge whereas the judgment relied by learned counsel for the respondent in the case of State of Telangana v. Managipet alias Mangipet Sarveshwar Reddy (supra) is on the issue which is on a point which is under consideration in the present case and the Apex Court in paragraph 37 has held as under:-

"37. Mr. Guru Krishna Kumar further refers to a Single Bench judgment of the Madras High Court in M. Soundararajan v. State through the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Ramanathapuram20 to contend that amended provisions of the Act as amended by Act XVI of 2018 would be applicable as the Amending Act came into force before filing of the charge sheet. We do not find any merit in the said argument. In the aforesaid case, the learned trial court applied amended provisions in the Act which came into force on 26 th July, 2018 and acquitted both the accused from charge under Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Act. T