Procedural amendments to statutes are retrospective and can be applied to offences committed before the amendment came into effect.

R.P. Gupta, J.

1. The present petition is directed against judgment and sentencing order dated 17-5-1991 by Special Judge, Sagar, under Essential Commodities Act. The petitioner was convicted for having contravened Clause 3(i) of M.P. Pulses Edible Oil C.E. and Edible Dealers Licensing Order, 1977 by storing 120 quintals of Tevda pulses on 01-10-1986. The petitioner has been found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act and sentenced to R.I. for 3 months.

2. In the present petition, the petitioner has raised two points : (1) that the prosecution was started by complaint by Food Inspector who seized the goods and he was not authorised to do so under the provisions of Section 12AA(1)(e) of Essential Commodities Act. He could do so only if he was so authorised by State Government. He was not an aggrieved person at the time when this offence was committed that is 01-10-1986 (2) the second point is that in fact the Pulses in question had been kept in the premises of the petitioner by his brother who was transporting them in his Truck and the Truck got out of order.

3. The later plea on merits was rejected by the trial Court on a consideration of the evidence led by both sides. The first plea was not raised before the trial Court and finds no discussion in the judgment, but being legal plea, it has been placed before this Court. Some relevant dates may be noticed for considering validity of plea : No. (1) the Goods were seized from possession of the petitioner on 01-10-1986; (2) The complaint was filed before Special Judge, Sagar, by A.K. Mishra, Food Inspector, Sagar, on 22-12-1989. Section 12AA(1)(e) of the E.C. Act provides as under; Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code--

"A special Court may, upon a perusal of police report of the facts constituting an offence under this Act, 1(or upon a complaint made by an officer of the Central Government or a State Government authorised in this behalf by the Government concerned) 2(or any person aggrieved or any recognised consumer association whether such person is a member of that association or not) take cognizance of that offence without the accused being committed to it for trial.

The portion (1) of Clause (e) above was introduced by Act No. 42 of 1986 with effect from 8th September, 1986 and the portion in (2) of Clause (e) above was introduced by Section 3 of Act No. 73 of 1986, but it was made effective with effect from 1st May, 1987 vide S.O. 438(E) dated 27th April, 1987.

4. Thus, at the time when this complaint was filed by the Food Inspector, any person aggrieved could file a complaint. The learned State Counsel was asked if he could show that the State of M. P. had authorised the Food Inspectors to file complaint as was required in terms of 1st bracketed portion of Clause (e). The learned State counsel has not been able to trace if there is any such authorisation in favour of food inspector. Therefore, the question is whether the Food Inspector was a person aggrieved and whether on the date when he filed this complaint, he could do so.

5. The contention of counsel for petitioner is that since the offence pertains to 1-10-1986 and this amendment in the portion falling in bracket (2) was introduced with effect from 1-5-1987, that is an aggrieved person could not file complaint at that time, the Food Inspector even if he be considered so aggrieved, could not file the complaint at any time, thereafter. He urges that such an amendment could not have retrospective effect and could not apply to offences which were committed before 1st May, 1987.

6. The learned Government counsel has urged, firstly that amendment in procedural law has always retrospective effect, that this is the general rule of interpretation that the present amendment by introducing 2nd bracketed portion above referred in Clause (e) of Section 12AA(1) is only procedural amendment and so has retrospective effect, this procedure is permitted to any prosecutions which may be