Securities and Exchange Board of India Vs. Classic Credit Ltd. [August 21, 2017]
2017 Latest Caselaw 594 SC

Securities and Exchange Board of India Vs. Classic Credit Ltd.

[Criminal Appeal No. 67 of 2011]

[Criminal Appeal Nos. 68 to 73 of 2011]

[Civil Appeal Nos. 102-103 of 2011]

[Criminal Appeal No.1096 of 2013]

[Writ Petition (CRL.) No. 67 of 2016]

[Criminal Appeal No. 1450 of 2017 arising out of SLP (CRL.) No.3593 of 2011]

[Civil Appeal No.10729 of 2017 arising out of SLP(C) No. 21394 of 2011]

Jagdish Singh Khehar, CJI.

1. Leave granted, in all the special leave petitions.

2. Complaints were filed against the private parties herein, for offences punishable under the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as 'the SEBI Act'). At the time when the complaints were filed under Section 26(2) of 'the SEBI Act', the concerned accused were to be tried by a Metropolitan Magistrate (or, a Judicial Magistrate of the first class).

In this bunch of cases, the contention before this Court, at the behest of the private parties is, that for offences allegedly committed before 29.10.2002 (whether or not, taken up for trial before 29.10.2002) the trial was to be conducted by the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate (or, a Judicial Magistrate of the first class), and none other. It is relevant to record, that in these cases complaints filed against the private parties herein, pertain to allegations of commission or omission, prior to 29.10.2002. In some of these matters, proceedings were initiated prior to 29.10.2002, while in others, it was initiated after 29.10.2002.

The above contention pertaining to the 'forum', for trial by a Metropolitan Magistrate (or, a Judicial Magistrate of the first class), was premised on a purely legal assertion, founded on the format of Sections 24 and 26 of 'the SEBI Act', as they existed prior to the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Amendment) Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 2002 Amendment Act').

It was the submission of the private parties, that the amended provisions under 'the 2002 Amendment Act' had no express or implied retrospective effect, and therefore, the amendment carried out through 'the 2002 Amendment Act', would not have any impact, particularly on the 'forum' for trial (-the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, or Judicial Magistrate of the first class).

It was submitted, that trial in all these matters, with reference to offences committed prior to 29.10.2002, whether or not put to trial, could only be conducted by the Metropolitan Magistrate (or, Judicial Magistrate of the first class).

3. In order to appreciate the gamut of the submissions advanced, it is imperative to extract hereunder, Sections 24 and 26 of 'the SEBI Act', in the format in which the provisions existed, prior to 'the 2002 Amendment Act'.

The same are accordingly reproduced below:

"24. Offences. -

(1) Without prejudice to any award of penalty by the adjudicating officer under this Act, if any person contravenes or attempts to contravene or abets the contravention of the provisions of this Act or of any rules or regulations made thereunder, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.

(2) If any person fails to pay the penalty imposed by the adjudicating officer or fails to comply with any of his directions or orders, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month but which may extend to three years or with fine which shall not be less than two thousand rupees but which may extend to ten thousand rupees or with both.

xxx xxx xxx

26. Cognizance of offences by courts.-

(1) No court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act or any rules or regulations made thereunder, save on a complaint made by the Board.

(2) No court inferior to that of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the first class shall try an offence punishable under this Act." It is also necessary to notice the change brought in, on the subject of 'forum' for trial, by 'the 2002 Amendment Act'. Even though, the change of 'forum' was expressed in the amended Section 26(2), yet some of the submissions advanced during the course of hearing, emerged out of a collective reading of the amended Sections 24 and 26 (-by 'the 2002 Amendment Act'). Accordingly, the format which Sections 24 and 26 of 'the SEBI Act' assumed, after 'the 2002 Amendment Act' also needs to be noticed.

The above amended provisions, are accordingly reproduced below:

"24.Offences. -

(1) Without prejudice to any award of penalty by the adjudicating officer under this Act, if any person contravenes or attempts to contravene or abets the contravention of the provisions of this Act or of any rules or regulations made thereunder, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, or with fine, which may extend to twenty-five crore rupees or with both.

(2) If any person fails to pay the penalty imposed by the adjudicating officer or fails to comply with any of his directions or orders, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month but which may extend to ten years or with fine, which may extend to twenty-five crore rupees or with both.

xxx xxx xxx

26. Cognizance of offences by courts.-

(1) No court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act or any rules or regulations made thereunder, save on a complaint made by the Board.

(2) No court inferior to that of a Court of Session shall try any offence punishable under this Act."

4. After 'the 2002 Amendment Act', all pending matters (-before Metropolitan Magistrates, or Judicial Magistrates of the first class) were committed to the concerned, Court of Session. This was done, under the assumption, that 'the 2002 Amendment Act' had the effect of retrospectively altering the 'forum' for trial.

And as such, matters which were being tried by Metropolitan Magistrates (or, Judicial Magistrates of the first class), and were pending before such Courts, were transferred to the concerned Court of Session. The above change of 'forum' for trial, was assailed by some of the private parties, before the court to which the matters were committed. Their challenge failed. The matters were then carried, to the jurisdictional High Court, i.e., the High Court of Judicature at Bombay (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Bombay High Court'). Alternatively, some of the private parties, directly approached the jurisdictional High Court, to assail the changed 'forum' of trial.

5. Before the Bombay High Court, the SEBI supported the determination rendered by the Court of Session, and also, placed reliance on a decision rendered by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the Delhi High Court') in Panther Fincap and Management Services Ltd. v. Securities and Exchange Board of India (decided on 5.9.2006), wherein it had been concluded, that the amendment to Section 26 of 'the SEBI Act' through 'the 2002 Amendment Act', related to a change in 'forum' of trial, and therefore, the amendment was only procedural. And consequently, an amendment of procedure being impliedly retrospective, the Delhi High Court held, that the committal of pending cases to the Court of Session, was justified in law.

6. A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, through the impugned judgment dated 16.01.2008, collectively disposed of all matters pending before it, by setting aside the judgment rendered by the Court of Session, by taking a view different from the one recorded by the Delhi High Court. The SEBI therefore approached this Court to assail the judgment rendered by the Bombay High Court. Some of the cases in this group of cases (being collectively disposed of through the instant judgment), arise out of the judgment of the Bombay High Court dated 16.01.2008. All the remaining cases, arise out of a similar sequence of events, which culminated before the Delhi High Court, wherein the lead judgment was rendered in Mahender Singh v. High Court of Delhi (Writ Petition (C) No.141 of 2007, decided on 11.01.2008).

It is apparent, that the above judgment of the Delhi High Court dated 11.01.2008, was rendered just a few days before the impugned judgment was rendered by the Bombay High Court, on 16.01.2008.

7. Consequent upon an interpretation of the amendment to Section 26 by 'the 2002 Amendment Act', the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, through the above judgment dated 11.01.2008 (as already noticed above), held that after the amendment of Section 26 by 'the 2002 Amendment Act', offences under 'the SEBI Act', were to be tried by a Court of Session.

It is also necessary for us to mention, that the Bombay High Court did not refer to the above judgment dated 11.01.2008, since it may not have come to its notice, as the Bombay High Court had reserved orders in the matter on 22.02.2007 - well before the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, had pronounced its judgment (- on 11.01.2008). The judgment dated 11.01.2008 rendered by the Delhi High Court (recording a view, contrary to that expressed by the Bombay High Court) has been assailed by private parties, affected by the change of 'forum' of trial, from the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate (or, a Judicial Magistrate of the first class), to the Court of Session.

8. Whilst these matters were pending before this Court, 'the SEBI Act' was again amended, by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Amendment) Act, 2014 (hereinafter referred to, as 'the 2014 Amendment Act'). It is relevant for the present controversy to notice, that by 'the 6 2014 Amendment Act', Section 26(2) was omitted from 'the SEBI Act', and Sections 26A to 26E were inserted therein, with effect from 18.07.2013. During the course of hearing, one of the contentions advanced by learned counsel representing SEBI was, that the effect and impact of 'the 2002 Amendment Act' with reference to the change of 'forum' for trial under Section 26(2), from the Metropolitan Magistrate (or, the Judicial Magistrate of the first class), to the Court of Session, had again been altered.

It was submitted, that all pending matters were now to be tried by a Special Court, in terms of 'the 2014 Amendment Act', and therefore, all the cases in hand, had been rendered infructuous, because now the 'forum' for trial had again been changed. The instant position, canvassed on behalf of 'the SEBI', was seriously contested by learned counsel representing the private parties. Having examined the contention, we are of the considered view, that it is imperative for us (during the course of the present adjudication), to render a determination on the effect and impact of 'the 2014 Amendment Act', as well. It is therefore, that learned counsel for the rival parties were heard, and they advanced detailed submissions on this aspect of the matter, as well.

9. Since we will also be dealing with the jurisdictional effect of 'the 2014 Amendment Act', to matters where the offence(s) was/were committed before 29.10.2002 (whether or not, put up for trial before 29.10.2002). It is necessary for us, to extract herein Sections 26A to 26E 7 inserted into 'the SEBI Act' through 'the 2014 Amendment Act'. The above provisions are accordingly reproduced below:

''26A. Establishment of Special Courts.-

(1) The Central Government may, for the purpose of providing speedy trial of offences under this Act, by notification, establish or designate as many Special Courts as may be necessary.

(2) A Special Court shall consist of a single judge who shall be appointed by the Central Government with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the High Court within whose jurisdiction the judge to be appointed is working.

(3) A person shall not be qualified for appointment as a judge of a Special Court unless he is, immediately before such appointment, holding the office of a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge, as the case may be.

26B. Offences triable by Special Courts.- Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), all offences under this Act committed prior to the date of commencement of the Securities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2014 or on or after the date of such commencement, shall be taken cognizance of and tried by the Special Court established for the area in which the offence is committed or where there are more Special Courts than one for such area, by such one of them as may be specified in this behalf by the High Court concerned.

26C. Appeal and revision.- The High Court may exercise, so far as may be applicable, all the powers conferred by Chapters XXIX and XXX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) on a High Court, as if a Special Court within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the High Court were a Court of Session trying cases within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the High Court.

26D. Application of Code to proceedings before Special Court.-

(1) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) shall apply to the proceedings before a Special Court and for the purposes of the said provisions, the Special Court shall be deemed to be a Court of Session and the person conducting prosecution before a Special Court shall be deemed to be a Public Prosecutor within the meaning of clause (u) of section 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 (2 of 1974). (2) The person conducting prosecution referred to in sub-section (1) should have been in practice as an advocate for not less than seven years or should have held a post, for a period of not less than seven years, under the Union or a State, requiring special knowledge of law.

26E. Transitional provisions.- Any offence committed under this Act, which is triable by a Special Court shall, until a Special Court is established, be taken cognizance of and tried by a Court of Session exercising jurisdiction over the area, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974):

Provided that nothing contained in this section shall affect the powers of the High Court under section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 (2 of 1974) to transfer any case or class of cases taken cognizance by a Court of Session under this section.''. 10. Ms. Pinky Anand, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, whilst appearing on behalf of the SEBI, laid the foundation of her submissions by asserting, that it was a settled proposition of law, that alteration of substantive law is always presumed and treated as having only prospective implications, unless the legislative enactment itself, expressly or impliedly mandates it to be retrospective.

And in contradistinction to the above, it was submitted, that an amendment to a procedural enactment is always presumed and treated to have retrospective effect, except when intended otherwise, expressly or impliedly, through the legislation itself. Accordingly, it was asserted, that change of 'forum' for trial, having merely procedural connotations, the same was bound to be treated as retrospective, especially because there was no express or implied intent in the legislative enactments ('the 2002 Amendment Act'; and 'the 2014 Amendment Act') that the amendments were intended to have prospective effect.

11. Additionally, it was submitted, that in the facts and circumstances of this case, there would be absolutely no prejudice caused to the private parties, by change of 'forum' for trial, firstly, by transfer of proceedings from the Metropolitan Magistrates (or, the Judicial Magistrates of the 9 first class), to the Court of Session, and thereafter, by the transfer of proceedings from the Court of Session, to that of the Special Court.

The absence of any alleged prejudice to the accused, in the pleadings filed on behalf of the private parties before this Court, and the absence of any such submissions, during the course of hearing (to demonstrate prejudice), according to learned counsel, leave no room for any doubt, that the litigation initiated by the private parties, based on the above mentioned jurisdictional issue, was only a ploy to delay the prosecution initiated against them, by SEBI.

12. It was also the contention of the learned Additional Solicitor General representing SEBI, that 'the SEBI Act' was an enactment, which provided for a wholesome special procedure to deal with criminal implications, on account of the violation of the provisions of 'the SEBI Act'. It was submitted, that the provisions of 'the SEBI Act', were separate and distinct, from the general provisions contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Since, according to learned counsel, a special enactment is always presumed to have an overriding effect over a general enactment, the postulation of a special 'forum' under 'the SEBI Act', would have an overriding effect, over the general provisions contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was also submitted, that 'the SEBI Act' provided a complete code for prosecution of offences under 'the SEBI Act', and as such, reference to the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on the subject(s) expressly provided for, included the 'forum' for trial, would not be proper.

13. In order to substantiate her contention, that alteration in procedure, had an implied retrospective effect, and further, that there was no vested right with a litigant, on a matter of procedure, learned Additional Solicitor General, placed reliance on a number of judgments.

We shall first endeavour to refer to the same hereunder:

(i) In the first instance, reliance was placed on Union of India v. Sukumar Pyne, AIR 1966 SC 1206, a judgment rendered by a Constitution Bench, wherein this Court observed as under: "9. Mr Chatterjee, the learned counsel for the respondent, urges that a substantive vested right to be tried by an ordinary Court existed before the amendment, and he relied on Maxwell 11th Edn., p. 217, where it is stated that "the general principle, however, seems to be that alterations in procedure are retrospective, unless there be some good reason against it."

He says that there is a good reason if the principles of Art. 20 are borne in mind. In our opinion, there is force in the contention of the learned Solicitor-General. As observed by this Court in 1953 SCR 1188: (AIR 1953 SC 394) a person accused of the commission of an offence has no vested right to be tried by a particular Court or a particular procedure except insofar as there is any constitutional objection by way of discrimination or the violation of any other fundamental right is involved. It is well recognized that "no person has a vested right in any course of procedure" (vide Maxwell 11th Edn., p. 216), and we see no reason why this ordinary rule should not prevail in the present case.

There is no principle underlying Art. 20 of the Constitution which makes a right to any course of procedure a vested right. Mr Chatterjee complains that there is no indication in the Amending Act that the new procedure would be retrospective and he further says that this affects his right of appeal under the Criminal Procedure Code. But if this is a matter of procedure, then it is not necessary that there should be a special provision to indicate that the new procedural law is retrospective. No right of appeal under the Criminal Procedure Code is affected because no proceedings had ever been started under the Criminal Procedure Code."

(ii) Reliance was then placed on Ramesh Kumar Soni v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2013) 14 SCC 696, wherefrom, our attention was drawn to the following observations:

"2. The factual matrix in which the controversy arises may be summarised as under: Crime No. 129 of 2007 for commission of offences punishable under Sections 408, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC (Indian Penal code, 1860) was registered against the appellant on 18-5-2007, at Bheraghat Police Station. On the date of the registration of the case the offences in question were triable by a Magistrate of First Class in terms of the First Schedule of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

That position underwent a change on account of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Madhya Pradesh Amendment) Act of 2007 introduced by Madhya Pradesh Act 2 of 2008 which amended the First Schedule of the 1973 Code and among others made offences under Sections 467, 468 and 471 IPC triable by the Court of Session instead of a Magistrate of First Class. The amendment received the assent of the President on 14-2-2008 and was published in Madhya Pradesh Gazette (Extraordinary) on 22-2-2008.

xxx xxx xxx

9. Having said so, we may now examine the issue from a slightly different angle. The question whether any law relating to forum of trial is procedural or substantive in nature has been the subject-matter of several pronouncements of this Court in the past. We may refer to some of these decisions, no matter briefly. 10. In New India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shanti Misra (1975) 2 SCC 840, this Court was dealing with the claim of payment of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. The victim of the accident had passed away because of the vehicular accident before the constitution of the Claims Tribunal under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, as amended. The legal heirs of the deceased filed a claim petition for payment of compensation before the Tribunal after the Tribunal was established.

The question that arose was whether the claim petition was maintainable having regard to the fact that the cause of action had arisen prior to the change of the forum for trial of a claim for payment of compensation. This Court held that the change of law operates retrospectively even if the cause of action or right of action had accrued prior to the change of forum. The claimant shall, therefore, have to approach the forum as per the amended law. The claimant, observed this Court, had a "vested right of action" but not a "vested right of forum".

It also held that unless by express words the new forum is available only to causes of action arising after the creation of the forum, the general rule is to make it retrospective. The following passages are in this regard apposite: (SCC pp. 844-45, paras 5-6)

"5. On the plain language of Sections 110-A and 110-F there should be no difficulty in taking the view that the change in law was merely a change of forum i.e. a change of adjectival or procedural law and not of substantive law. It is a well-established proposition that such a change of law operates retrospectively and the person has to go to the new forum even if his cause of action or right of action accrued prior to the change of forum. He will have a vested right of action but not a vested right of forum.

If by express words the new forum is made available only to causes of action arising after the creation of the forum, then the retrospective operation of the law is taken away. Otherwise the general rule is to make it retrospective. The expressions 'arising out of an accident' occurring in sub-section (1) and 'over the area in which the accident occurred', mentioned in sub-section (2) clearly show that the change of forum was meant to be operative retrospectively irrespective of the fact as to when the accident occurred.

To that extent there was no difficulty in giving the answer in a simple way. But the provision of limitation of 60 days contained in sub-section (3) created an obstacle in the straight application of the well-established principle of law. If the accident had occurred within 60 days prior to the constitution of the tribunal then the bar of limitation provided in sub-section (3) was not an impediment. An application to the tribunal could be said to be the only remedy.

If such an application, due to one reason or the other, could not be made within 60 days then the tribunal had the power to condone the delay under the proviso. But if the accident occurred more than 60 days before the constitution of the tribunal then the bar of limitation provided in sub-section (3) of Section 110-A on its face was attracted. This difficulty of limitation led most of the High Courts to fall back upon the proviso and say that such a case will be a fit one where the tribunal would be able to condone the delay under the proviso to sub-section (3), and led others to say that the tribunal will have no jurisdiction to entertain such an application and the remedy of going to the civil court in such a situation was not barred under Section 110-F of the Act. While taking the latter view the High Court failed to notice that primarily the law engrafted in Sections 110-A and 110-F was a law relating to the change of forum.

6. In our opinion in view of the clear and unambiguous language of Sections 110-A and 110-F it is not reasonable and proper to allow the law of change of forum give way to the bar of limitation provided in sub-section (3) of Section 110-A. It must be vice versa. The change of the procedural law of forum must be given effect to. The underlying principle of the change of law brought about by the amendment in the year 1956 was to enable the claimants to have a cheap remedy of approaching the claims tribunal on payment of a nominal court fee whereas a large amount of ad valorem court fee was required to be paid in civil court."

11. In Hitendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra (1994) 4 SCC 602, one of the questions which this Court was examining was whether clause (bb) of Section 20(4) of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 introduced by an Amendment Act governing Section 167(2) CrPC in relation to TADA matters was in the realm of procedural law and if so, whether the same would be applicable to pending cases. ..... The Court summed up the legal position with regard to the procedural law being retrospective in its operation and the right of a litigant to claim that he be tried by a particular Court, in the following words: (SCC p. 633, para 26)

"(i) A statute which affects substantive rights is presumed to be prospective in operation unless made retrospective, either expressly or by necessary intendment, whereas a statute which merely affects procedure, unless such a construction is textually impossible, is presumed to be retrospective in its application, should not be given an extended meaning and should be strictly confined to its clearly defined limits.

(ii) Law relating to forum and limitation is procedural in nature, whereas law relating to right of action and right of appeal even though remedial is substantive in nature.

(iii) Every litigant has a vested right in substantive law but no such right exists in procedural law.

(iv) A procedural statute should not generally speaking be applied retrospectively where the result would be to create new disabilities or obligations or to impose new duties in respect of transactions already accomplished.

(v) A statute which not only changes the procedure but also creates new rights and liabilities shall be construed to be prospective in operation, unless otherwise provided, either expressly or by necessary implication."

12. We may also refer to the decision of this Court in Sudhir G. Angur v. M. Sanjeev (2006) 1 SCC 141 where a three-Judge Bench of this Court approved the decision of the Bombay High Court in Shiv Bhagwan Moti Ram Saraoji v. Onkarmal Ishar Dass (1952) 54 Bom. LR 330 and observed: (SCC p. 148, para 11)

"11. ... It has been held that a court is bound to take notice of the change in the law and is bound to administer the law as it was when the suit came up for hearing. It has been held that if a court has jurisdiction to try the suit, when it comes on for disposal, it then cannot refuse to assume jurisdiction by reason 14 of the fact that it had no jurisdiction to entertain it at the date when it was instituted . We are in complete agreement with these observations."

xxx xxx xxx

19. ..... In Nani Gopal Mitra v. State of Bihar AIR 1970 SC 1636, this Court declared that amendments relating to procedure operated retrospectively subject to the exception that whatever be the procedure which was correctly adopted and proceedings concluded under the old law the same cannot be reopened for the purpose of applying the new procedure. ..... This Court held that the conviction pronounced by the Special Judge could not be termed illegal just because there was an amendment to the procedural law on 18-12-1964.

The following passage is, in this regard, apposite: (AIR p. 1639, paras 5-6) "5. ... It is therefore clear that as a general rule the amended law relating to procedure operates retrospectively. But there is another equally important principle viz. that a statute should not be so construed as to create new disabilities or obligations or impose new duties in respect of transactions which were complete at the time the amending Act came into force (see A Debtor, In re, ex p Debtor (1936) 1 Ch 237 (CA) and Attorney General v. Vernazza 1960 AC 965). The same principle is embodied in Section 6 of the General Clauses Act which is to the following effect: * * *

6. The effect of the application of this principle is that pending cases, although instituted under the old Act but still pending, are governed by the new procedure under the amended law, but whatever procedure was correctly adopted and concluded under the old law cannot be opened again for the purpose of applying the new procedure. ..... It is not hence possible to accept the argument of the appellant that the conviction pronounced by the Special Judge, Santhal Parganas, has become illegal or in any way defective in law because of the amendment to procedural law made on 18-12-1964. In our opinion, the High Court was right in invoking the presumption under Section 5(3) of the Act even though it was repealed on 18-12-1964 by the amending Act.

We accordingly reject the argument of the appellant on this aspect of the case." (iii) Reliance was then placed on Kamlesh Kumar v. State of Jharkhand, (2013) 15 SCC 460. In this judgment, the main opinion was rendered by H.L. Gokhale, J., and a concurring order was passed by 15 Madan B. Lokur, J. Reliance was placed on the following observations from the judgment rendered by H.L. Gokhale, J.: "19. The First Schedule to CrPC deals with the classification of offences. Part I thereof deals with the offences under the Penal Code, 1860, Part II deals with classification of offences against other laws, which would include offences under laws such as FERA.

The petitioners were being prosecuted under Section 56 of FERA, wherein the maximum punishment that could be awarded was up to seven years. The second entry of this Part II laid down that such offences were triable by a Magistrate of the First Class, provided those offences were cognizable offences. As noted earlier, Section 62 of FERA made the offence under Section 56 non-cognizable. Besides, Section 61(1) of FERA stated that "it shall be lawful" for the Magistrate to pass the necessary sentence under Section 56. It does not state that the Magistrate alone is empowered to pass the necessary sentence, in which case the proceeding cannot be transferred from his Court.

This provision is not like the one in A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak (1988) 2 SCC 602 where under Section 7(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952 the offence was "triable by Special Judge only". In the instant case it was merely lawful for the Magistrate to try the offences under Section 61, but the Court of the Magistrate was not a court of exclusive jurisdiction as in Antulay case. The offence was a non-cognizable one, and therefore it was not mandatory that it ought to have been tried only by the Magistrate of the First Class. Thus the petitioner could not claim that the Magistrate had the special jurisdiction to try the offence, and that the State could not transfer the case to the Sessions Judge.

In view of what is stated above, it cannot be said that the Magistrate's Court had an exclusive jurisdiction to try the cases relating to violations of the provisions of FERA, and those cases could not be transferred to the Special Judge. In the present case the accused were common, many of the witnesses would be common, and so also their evidence. The administrative power of the High Court in such a situation to effect transfer has been upheld in Ranbir Yadav v. State of Bihar (1995) 4 SCC 392 , and there is no reason for this Court to take a different view in the facts of the present case.

20. The petitioner had relied upon the judgment of a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in A.S. Impex Ltd. v. Delhi High Court (2003) 107 DLT 734, on the question of transfer of a proceeding. Mr Malhotra pointed out that although the judgment in Ranbir Yadav was brought to the notice of the Division Bench in that matter, the Division Bench had erroneously held that the reliance thereon to be a "misplaced" one, as can be seen from the sentence at the end of para 12 of that judgment.

This judgment 16 has been distinguished and found to be not laying down a good law by another Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Mahender Singh v. High Court of Delhi (2009) 151 Comp Cas 485 (Del). In that matter, the Court was concerned with transfer of prosecutions under the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 from the Magistrate's Court to the Court of Session, and the High Court has held it to be valid and permissible. The Division Bench in Mahender Singh has in terms held that reliance on the judgment in A.R. Antulay to oppose such transfer was of no help, and rightly so. There is no difficulty in stating that A.S. Impex Ltd. does not lay down the correct proposition of law.

21. The High Court does have the power to transfer the cases and appeals under Section 407 CrPC which is essentially a judicial power. Section 407(1)(c) CrPC lays down that, where it will tend to the general convenience of the parties or witnesses, or where it was expedient for the ends of justice, the High Court could transfer such a case for trial to a Court of Session. That does not mean that the High Court cannot transfer cases by exercising its administrative power of superintendence which is available to it under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. While repelling the objection to the exercise of this power, this Court observed in para 13 of Ranbir Yadav as follows: (SCC p. 400) "

13 . We are unable to share the above view of Mr Jethmalani. So long as power can be and is exercised purely for administrative exigency without impinging upon and prejudicially affecting the rights or interests of the parties to any judicial proceeding we do not find any reason to hold that administrative powers must yield place to judicial powers simply because in a given circumstance they coexist."

22 . For the reasons stated above, there is no substance in the objections raised by the petitioners. The High Court has looked into Section 407 CrPC , referred to Articles 227 and 235 of the Constitution of India, and thereafter in its impugned judgment has observed as follows: " Having perused Section 407 CrPC and Articles 227 and 235, I have no hesitation to hold that this Court either on the administrative side or in the judicial side has absolute jurisdiction to transfer any criminal cases pending before one competent court to be heard and decided by another court within the jurisdiction of this Court.

This Court in its administrative power can issue direction that cases of particular nature shall be heard by particular court having jurisdiction." In view of what is stated earlier, we have no reason to take a view different from the one taken by the High Court. Both the special leave petitions (criminal) are, therefore, dismissed."

From the observations recorded by Madan B. Lokur, J. reliance was placed on the following:

"30. It was contended that assuming that at law the case could validly have been transferred to the Special Judge, the petitioners are seriously prejudiced inasmuch as their right of appeal from the decision of a Magistrate to a Sessions Judge is taken away. Due to this prejudicial action, which was taken by the High Court without hearing the petitioners, the notification conferring power on the Special Judge to try the case should be struck down.

xxx xxx xxx

33. Similarly, in Maria Cristina De Souza Sodder v. Amria Zurana Pereira Pinto (1979) 1 SCC 92 it was held somewhat more elaborately: (SCC p. 97, para 5) "5. ... It is no doubt well settled that the right of appeal is a substantive right and it gets vested in a litigant no sooner the lis is commenced in the Court of the first instance, and such right or any remedy in respect thereof will not be affected by any repeal of the enactment conferring such right unless the repealing enactment either expressly or by necessary implication takes away such right or remedy in respect thereof. ...

This position, has also been settled by the decisions of the Privy Council and this Court (vide Colonial Sugar Refining Co. Ltd. v. Irving 1905 AC 369 and Garikapati Veeraya v. N. Subbiah Choudhry AIR 1957 SC 540) but the forum where such appeal can be lodged is indubitably a procedural matter and, therefore, the appeal, the right to which has arisen under a repealed Act, will have to be lodged in a forum provided for by the repealing Act."

34. In T. Bara i v. Henry Ah Hoe (1983) 1 SCC 177, it was observed in para 17 of the Report that a person accused of the commission of an offence has no right to trial by a particular procedure. This view was followed in Rai Bahadur Seth Shreeram Durgaprasad v. Director of Enforcement (1987) 3 SCC 27.

35. Therefore, it cannot be seriously urged that the petitioners were prejudiced by a change of the appellate forum.

xxx xxx xxx

43. While the revisional power of a superior court actually enables it to correct a grave error, the existence of that power does not confer any corresponding right on a litigant. This is the reason why, in a given case, a superior court may decline to exercise its power of revision, if the facts and circumstances of the case do not warrant the exercise of its discretion.

This is also the reason why it is felicitously stated that a revision is not a right but only a "procedural facility" available to a party. If the matter is looked at in this light, the transfer of a case from a Magistrate to a Special 18 Judge does not take away this procedural facility available to the petitioners. It only changes the forum and as already held above, the petitioners have no right to choose the forum in which to file an appeal or move a petition for revising an interlocutory order.

xxx xxx xxx

45. In A.S. Impex case (2003) 107 DLT 734, the High Court administratively decided to transfer cases filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 on or before 31-12-2001 and pending before the Magistrates to the Additional Sessions Judges. A notification for transfer of cases was accordingly issued and this was struck down by the Delhi High Court by, inter alia, relying on the law laid down in Antulay. As already noted above, the law laid down in Antulay has limited application and is not relevant to cases such as the one we are dealing with. This was clearly explained in Ranbir Yadav but the Delhi High Court ignored the observations of this Court without much ado by holding: (A.S. Impex case, DLT p. 744, para 12)

"12. ... In that case the Court transferred the case from the Court of one Magistrate to the Court of another Magistrate for the reason that there was shortage of accommodation in the first court. That is not the case in hand. It was not a case where the jurisdiction was transferred from the Court of Magistrate to the Court of Session."

The Delhi High Court also proceeded on an erroneous basis that the exercise of plenary administrative power available to the High Court to transfer cases meant the bypassing or circumventing of statutory provisions empowering the Magistrates to try cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and conferring that jurisdiction on Additional Sessions Judges. The High Court did not correctly appreciate the power available to a High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution."

(iv) On the instant aspect of the matter, last of all, reliance was placed on Rajendra Kumar v. Kalyan, (2000) 8 SCC 99. The Court's attention was invited to the following conclusions: "20. We do feel it expedient to record that the analysis as effected by the High Court stands acceptable and as such we refrain ourselves from dilating on this aspect of the matter any further.

It is pertinent to add in this context that some differentiation exists between a procedural statute and statute dealing with substantive rights and in the normal course of events, matters of procedure are presumed to be retrospective unless there is an express ban onto its retrospectivity. In this context, the observations of this Court in the case of Jose Da Costa v. Bascora Sadasiva Sinai Narcornim 19 (1976) 2 SCC 917 is of some relevance. This Court in para 31 of the Report observed: (SCC p. 925) "31. Before ascertaining the effect of the enactments aforesaid passed by the Central Legislature on pending suits or appeals, it would be appropriate to bear in mind two well-established principles.

The first is that while provisions of a statute dealing merely with matters of procedure may properly, unless that construction be textually inadmissible, have retrospective effect attributed to them, provisions which touch a right in existence at the passing of the statute are not to be applied retrospectively in the absence of express enactment or necessary intendment (see Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT, AIR 1927 PC 242). The second is that a right of appeal being a substantive right the institution of a suit carries with it the implication that all successive appeals available under the law then in force would be preserved to the parties to the suit throughout the rest of the career of the suit.

There are two exceptions to the application of this rule, viz. (1) when by competent enactment such right of appeal is taken away expressly or impliedly with retrospective effect and (2) when the court to which appeal lay at the commencement of the suit stands abolished (see Garikapati Veeraya v. N. Subbiah Choudhry AIR 1957 SC 540 and Colonial Sugar Refining Co. Ltd. v. Irving 1905 AC 369)." 21. Still later this Court in Gurbachan Singh v. Satpal Singh (1990) 1 SCC 445 expressed in the similar vein as regards the element of retrospectivity.

The English courts also laid that the rule that an Act of Parliament is not to be given retrospective effect applies only to statutes which affect the vested rights; it does not apply to statutes which alter the form of procedure or the admissibility of evidence, or the effect which the courts give to evidence; if the new Act affects matters of procedure only, then, prima facie, it applies to all actions pending as well as future (see in this context the decisions of the House of Lords in the case of Blyth v. Blyth (1966) 1 All ER 524; A.G. v. Vernazza (1960) 3 All ER 97).

In Halsbury's Laws of England (4th Edn., Vol. 44, para 925, p. 574) upon reference to Wright v. Hale (1860) 6 H & N 227 and Gardner v. Lucas (1878) 3 AC 582 (HL) along with some later cases including Blyth v. Blyth it has been stated: "The presumption against retrospection does not apply to legislation concerned merely with matters of procedure or of evidence; on the contrary, provisions of that nature are to be construed as retrospective unless there is a clear indication that such was not the intention of Parliament."

22. The law thus seems to be well settled that no person has, in fact, a vested right in procedural aspect - one has only a right of prosecution or defence in the manner as prescribed by the law for 20 the time being and in the event of any change of procedure by an Act of Parliament one cannot possibly have any right to proceed with the pending proceeding excepting as altered by the new legislation and as such we need not dilate on the issue any further."

Based on the conclusions recorded by this Court in the above cited judgments, it was contended, that with reference to procedure, there could be no dispute, that cognizance to be taken by a court competent at the time a matter is taken up, can be changed retrospectively, even if the cause of action had accrued prior to the change (of 'forum' for trial).

And further, that an accused has no vested right, to be tried by a particular procedure, or by a particular court (forum), except insofar as there is a mandate (express or implied) in the amending statute, or a constitutional bar or objection, or the violation of any fundamental right. Therefore, when the amendments herein vested exclusive jurisdiction in a particular court (-the Court of Session, consequent upon 'the 2002 Amendment Act', and the Special Court, consequent upon 'the 2014 Amendment Act'), adjudication could thereupon have only been rendered by the court with which special jurisdiction was vested (by the respective amendments).

In such a situation, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, the special enactment would also have an overriding effect. It was therefore contended, that in the absence of any prejudice shown to the private parties before this Court, it was not open to them, to assail the express determination rendered for change of 'forum', in the first instance, by 'the 2002 Amendment Act', and thereafter, by 'the 2014 Amendment Act'.

14. It was also the contention of the learned Additional Solicitor General representing SEBI, that the legislature enacting the original legislation, surely had the power and the authority to amend the same, which would include the power to alter the 'forum' of trial, originally postulated. Herein again, it was contended, that the aforementioned proposition, is subject to a general limitation, namely, that the change of 'forum' for trial should not prejudicially affect the rights of the party(ies) facing prosecution. Insofar as the instant aspect of the matter is concerned, learned Additional Solicitor General placed reliance on the declared legal position, by citing the following judgments:

(i) Reliance was first of all placed on Kamlesh Kumar v. State of Jharkhand, (2013) 15 SCC 460. Our attention was invited to the following observations recorded therein: "27.3. The third reason related to the power of transfer available to this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution. In this context, reference was made to a Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Prem Chand Garg v. Excise Commr. AIR 1963 SC 996 wherein it was observed that: (AIR p. 1002, para 12)

"12. ... The powers of this Court are no doubt very wide and they are intended to be and will always be exercised in the interest of justice. But that is not to say that an order can be made by this Court which is inconsistent with the fundamental rights guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution. An order which this Court can make in order to do complete justice between the parties, must not only be consistent with the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution, but it cannot even be inconsistent with the substantive provisions of the relevant statutory laws."

Since the order of this Court transferring the case from the Special Judge to the High Court was contrary to the statutory law and (as held in a later part in Antulay) contrary to Article 14 and Article 19 of the Constitution, the order of transfer was liable to be set aside. In this context, this Court also noted that the power to create or enlarge jurisdiction is legislative in character and no court, whether superior or inferior or both combined, could enlarge the jurisdiction of a court. On this basis, inter alia, this Court concluded that the transfer of Antulay case from the Special Judge to the High Court was erroneous in law.

28. Antulay subsequently came up for consideration in Ranbir Yadav v. State of Bihar (1995) 4 SCC 392. In para 14 of the Report, it was noted that the express language of Section 7(1) of the CLA Act, took away the right of transfer of cases contained in the Code to any other court which was not a Special Court and that this was notwithstanding anything contained in Section 406 and Section 407 of the Code. This is what was said in this regard: (SCC p. 400) "14. Coming now to A.R. Antulay case we find that the principles of law laid down in the majority judgment, to which Mr Jethmalani drew our attention have no manner of application herein.

There questions arose as to whether ( i) the High Court could transfer a case triable according to the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952 ('the 1952 Act', for short) by a Special Court constituted thereunder to another court, which was not a Special Court and ( ii) the earlier order of the Supreme Court transferring the case pending before the Special Court to the High Court was valid and proper. In answering both the questions in the negative the learned Judges, expressing the majority view, observed that ( i ) Section 7(1) of the 1952 Act created a condition which was sine qua non for the trial of offences under Section 6(1) of the said Act.

The condition was that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure or any other law the said offence shall be triable by Special Judges only . By express terms therefore it took away the right of transfer of cases contained in the Code to any other court which was not a Special Court and this was notwithstanding anything contained in Sections 406 and 407 of the Code and (ii) the earlier order of the Supreme Court transferring the case to the High Court was not authorised by law, namely, Section 7(1) of the 1952 Act and the Supreme Court, by its direction, could not confer jurisdiction on the High Court of Bombay to try any case for which it did not possess such jurisdiction under the scheme of the 1952 Act."

(ii) Reliance was then placed on Nani Gopal Mitra v. State of Bihar, AIR 1970 SC 1636, and the observations recorded in paragraph 6, were brought to our notice: "6. The effect of the application of this principle is that pending cases although instituted under the old Act but still pending are 23 governed by the new procedure under the amended law, but whatever procedure was correctly adopted and concluded under the old law cannot be opened again for the purpose of applying the new procedure. In the present case, the trial of the appellant was taken up by the Special Judge, Santhal Parganas when Section 5(3) of the Act was still operative.

The conviction of the appellant was pronounced on March 31, 1962 by the Special Judge, Santhal Parganas long before the amending Act was promulgated. It is not hence possible to accept the argument of the appellant that the conviction pronounced by the Special Judge, Santhal Parganas has become illegal or in any way defective in law because of the amendment to procedural law made on December 18, 1964. In our opinion, the High Court was right in invoking the presumption under S. 5(3) of the Act even though it was repealed on December 18, 1964 by the amending Act. We accordingly reject the argument of the appellant on this aspect of the case."

(iii) Reliance was also placed on Securities and Exchange Board of India v. Ajay Agarwal, (2010) 3 SCC 765, wherefrom learned counsel pointedly drew our attention to the legal position expressed in paragraphs 40 and 41, which are reproduced below: "40. Provisions of Section 11-B being procedural in nature can be applied retrospectively. The Appellate Tribunal made a manifest error by not appreciating that Section 11-B is procedural in nature. It is a time-honoured principle if the law affects matters of procedure, then prima facie it applies to all actions, pending as well as future. [See K. Kapen Chako v. Provident Investment Co. (P) Ltd. (1977) 1 SCC 593, wherein A.N. Ray, C.J. laid down those principles].

41. Maxwell in his Interpretation of Statutes also indicated that no one has a vested right in any course of procedure. A person's right of either prosecution or defence is conditioned by the manner prescribed for the time being by the law and if by the Act of Parliament, the mode of proceeding is altered, then no one has any other right than to proceed under the alternate mode. (Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes, 11th Edn., p. 216.) These principles, enunciated by Maxwell, have been quoted with approval by the Supreme Court in its Constitution Bench judgment in Union of India v. Sukumar Pyne, AIR 1966 SC 1206." 24 (iv) Last of all, reliance was placed on A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, (1988) 2 SCC 602, wherefrom, our attention was pointedly drawn to the following:

"24. Section 7(1) of the 1952 Act creates a condition which is sine qua non for the trial of offences under Section 6(1) of the said Act. The condition is that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure or any other law , the said offences shall be triable by Special Judges only. Indeed conferment of the exclusive jurisdiction of the Special Judge is recognised by the judgment delivered by this Court in A.R. Antulay v. Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak (1984) 2 SCR 914 where this Court had adverted to Section 7(1) of the 1952 Act and at p. 931 (SCC p. 514) observed that Section 7 of the 1952 Act conferred exclusive jurisdiction on the Special Judge appointed under Section 6 to try cases set out in Sections 6(1)(a) and 6(1)(b) of the said Act.

The court emphasised that the Special Judge had exclusive jurisdiction to try offences enumerated in Section 6(1)(a) and (b). In spite of this while giving directions in the other matter, that is, R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay (1984) 2 SCR 495, this Court directed transfer to the High Court of Bombay the cases pending before the Special Judge. It is true that Section 7(1) and Section 6 of the 1952 Act were referred to while dealing with the other matters but while dealing with the matter of directions and giving the impugned directions, it does not appear that the court kept in mind the exclusiveness of the jurisdiction of the Special Court to try the offences enumerated in Section 6."

Based on the legal position declared by this Court, it was asserted, that the 'forum' for trial, expressed prior to the concerned amendment herein, did not create a vested right in the accused. And that, even in matters where proceedings had already commenced before the amendment, the amendment would have to be given effect to. Furthermore, the concerned accused were liable to be proceeded against, before the changed 'forum' (introduced by the amendment).

It was pointed out, that while interpreting the provisions of 'the SEBI Act' itself, this Court had held Section 11B to be a procedural provision, having retrospective 25 effect, and that, the amended provision would be applicable to pending cases, even in matters which had arisen prior to the amendment. It was submitted that, where a legislative enactment provides for a special/specific 'forum' for adjudication, then only such special/specific 'forum' can try matters arising under the enactment. It was submitted, that in such matters, the jurisdiction of all other courts stood excluded.

15. In order to support the contentions advanced on behalf of the SEBI, as have been recorded in the preceding two paragraphs, it was also the contention of the learned Additional Solicitor General, that procedure and 'forum' for trial postulated by a special law - 'the SEBI Act', would always have an overriding effect over the general law - the Code of Criminal Procedure. In this behalf, it was contended, that Section 26 of 'the SEBI Act' (consequent upon 'the 2002 Amendment Act') expressly provided, that "no court inferior to that of a court of session shall try any offence punishable under this Act". It was therefore asserted, that there was no room for any doubt, that the aforesaid amendment was made retrospectively, with effect from 29.10.2002.

It was submitted, that there was no ambiguity in the aforesaid provisions and it was not possible even on a close examination of the text of the above amendment, to construe otherwise. And that, after 29.10.2002 (i.e., the operative date of 'the 2002 Amendment Act') criminal adjudication arising under the provisions of 'the SEBI Act' could not be entertained by any court, inferior to the Court of Session. It was submitted, that the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate/Judicial 26 Magistrate, therefore came to be divested of the authority to adjudicate upon matters arising under 'the SEBI Act', after the above amendment. On the same analogy, it was contended, that consequent upon 'the 2014 Amendment Act', whereby, Section 26(2) of 'the SEBI Act' was omitted, and Section 26B of 'the SEBI Act' was inserted (into 'the SEBI Act'), jurisdiction was vested with Special Courts, to deal with all offences under 'the SEBI Act', "...committed prior to the date of commencement of the Securities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2014, or on or after the date of such commencement, shall be taken cognizance of and tried by the Special Court ...".

Based on the above amendment, which came into force with effect from 18.07.2013, it was asserted, that all courts other than Special Courts created under 'the SEBI Act', were divested of the power to adjudicate matters arising thereunder, including pending matters, which had arisen prior to the amendment. It was submitted, that the intent of the legislature was clear and emphatic, namely, offences committed before or after the coming into operation of 'the 2014 Amendment Act' would be triable only by a Special Court, and by no other court. It was therefore asserted, that with effect from 18.07.2013, all pending matters would have to be transferred for adjudication to the Special Courts.

Based on the aforesaid assertions, it was the contention of the learned Additional Solicitor General, that the Bombay High Court had erred in recording its finding, that cases instituted before a Metropolitan Magistrate (or, a Judicial Magistrate of the first class) would continue to be adjudicated by the said courts, and that, 'the 2002 27 Amendment Act' would have no effect on such matters.

In the above view of the matter, it was the submission of the learned Additional Solicitor General, that the determination rendered by the Bombay High Court, with reference to 'forum' had been rendered infructuous, consequent upon 'the 2014 Amendment Act' which inter alia omitted Section 26(2) from 'the SEBI Act', and retrospectively inserted Section 26B into 'the SEBI Act'. Before that, according to learned senior counsel, Section 26(2) of 'the SEBI Act' amended by 'the 2002 Amendment Act' held the field (with effect from 29.10.2002), and that, adjudication after 29.10.2002 could only be made (for offences arising under 'the SEBI Act'), by a Court of Session.

16. Mr. C.A. Sundaram, Senior Advocate, represented most of the private parties (some appellants, and some respondents). He acknowledged the proposition canvassed on behalf of the SEBI, on the basis of the judgments cited during the course of hearing. It was however his contention, that the proposition canvassed on behalf of the SEBI was the general view, on the subject of change in procedural law, which included change of 'forum'. It was his pointed assertion, that there was a basic difference between change in substantive law, change in procedural law, and change in procedure constituting a change in 'forum'. He emphasized, that there was an important and subtle difference in the latter two.

It was submitted, that change in 'forum' need not always be procedural. Learned counsel acknowledged, that change in substantive law was generally prospective (more so, in a case 28 of criminal jurisprudence). In this behalf, he placed reliance on Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India. It was also acknowledged, that even though change in procedural law was generally retrospective, it would not be so, where the legislature expressly or by necessary implication, required it to be prospective.

17. Learned Senior Advocate also pointed out, that all matters pertaining to change in 'forum' should not be clubbed and treated similarly, under the parameters expressed above. It was submitted, that cases pertaining to change of 'forum', ought to be placed in two different categories. Firstly, where the proceedings had already been instituted and were pending, at the time of amendment. And secondly, where proceedings were yet to be instituted, on the date when the amendment became operational. It was submitted, that where proceedings had already been initiated and trial was in progress, change of 'forum' by way of legislation, by implication would be prospective. In terms of the instant classification, it was submitted, that the present controversy falls in the first category. Change of 'forum', according to learned counsel, would not be retrospective, for the first category, only where expressly mandated otherwise. Besides the legality of the issues, learned counsel posed a simple question; how can an amendment in legislation, shift a pending case, midstream, to another court?

18. Learned senior counsel however conceded, that where the legislative amendment, while providing for a change of 'forum' for trial, also provides for transfer of pending case (postulated, under the 29 unamended enactment), the amendment of 'forum' for trial would be retrospective. It was submitted, that in the absence of express or implied intent, all matters falling in the first category would continue to remain with the original 'forum' (provided for, under the unamended provision). And therefore, such an amendment of 'forum', even though admittedly procedural in nature, would be prospective (and not, retrospective). It was submitted, that such express or implied intendment (pertaining to the first category), would become apparent from an ame