Patnaik, C.J. -- 1. These are references made by the Sessions Judge, Jabalpur and the Additional Sessions Judge, Indore under sub-section (2) of section 295 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short "the CrPC") referring the following two questions of law to the High Court :

"1.(a) Whether the recent amendment dated 22.2.2008 in the Schedule I of the CrPC is to be applied retrospectively?

1.(b) Consequently, whether the case pending before the Magistrate First Class, in which evidence partly or wholly has been recorded, and now has been committed to this Court is to be tried de novo by the Court of Sessions or it should be remanded back to the Magistrate First Class for further trial?

2. The background facts briefly are that a challan under section 409 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "the IPC") was filed against the accused on 4.7.1995 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class. Evidence of 9 out of 10 witnesses in the case has already been recorded and the case was fixed for the evidence of the 10th witness, the Investigating Officer to 13.3.2008. In the meanwhile, by the M.P. Act No.2 of 2008 called the 'Code of Criminal Procedure (Madhya Pradesh Amendment) Act, 2007' (for short "the Amendment"), the First Schedule of the CrPC was amended and by the amendment, offences under sections 317, 318, 326, 363, 363A, 365, 377, 392, 393, 394, 409, 435, 466, 467, 468, 471, 472, 473, 474, 475, 476, 477 an 477 A of the IPC were made triable by the 'Court of Sessions' instead of the 'Magistrate of the First Class'. The amendment received the assent of the President on 14.2.2008 and was published in the M.P. Gazette (Extraordinary) on 22.2.2008. In view of the aforesaid amendment, the Judicial Magistrate First Class committed the case to the Court of Sessions Judge, Jabalpur vide its order dated 31.3.2008. The Sessions Judge, Jabalpur, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties has referred the aforesaid two questions of law for the opinion of the High Court.

3. We have heard Mr. S.C. Datt, learned senior counsel, Mr. Surendra Singh, learned senior counsel and Mr. T.S. Ruprah, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State and we find that in the amendment, there is no express provision whatsoever as to whether the pending cases under the sections of the IPC which are to be tried by the Court of Sessions instead of the Magistrate of the First Class by the amendment to the First Schedule of the CrPC, are to be transferred and made over to the Court of Sessions, or are to be retained with the Judicial Magistrate First Class. In the absence of such express provision in the amendment, the question is whether the cases which are pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class at the time when the amendment was published on 22.2.2008 will have to continue in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class or will have to be transferred to the Court of Sessions. In Manujendra Dutt v. Pumedu Prasad Roy Chowdhury and others [AIR 1967 SC 1419], one of the questions which arose in the appeal by certificate granted by the High Court of Calcutta for decision of the Supreme Court was whether the Controller under the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1949 ceased to have jurisdiction in respect of proceedings pending before him with the deletion of section 29 from the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1949 by the Amendment Act IV of 1953. The Supreme Court held that though section 29 was deleted by the Amendment Act of 1953, the deletion would not affect pending proceedings and would not deprive the Controller of jurisdiction to try such proceedings pending before him at the date when the Amending Act came into force. The Supreme Court further held that though the Amending Act did not contain any saving clause under section 8 of the Bengal General Clauses Act, 1899, the transfer of suit having been lawfully made under section 29 of the Act, its deletion would not have the effect of altering the law applicable to the claim