Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. The learned counsel for the respondent/State contended that Section 53-A IPC did not altogether abolish the sentences for transportation for shorter term but merely converted them to imprisonment instead of transportation.

7. As noted in the Supreme Court‟s order dated 19.05.2009, the date on which the offence was committed in the present case was 30.08.1999. This means that the unamended provisions of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, as applicable on 30.08.1999, would be relevant. The Explosive Substances (Amendment) Act, 2001 came into operation on 01.02.2002. This is apparent from Section 1(2) of the Explosive Substances (Amendment) Act, 2001 read with the Ministry of Home Affair‟s Notification No.S.O.131 (E), dated 31.01.2002 published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3 (ii) dated 31.01.2002. By virtue of the said notification, the Central Government appointed the 1st day of February, 2002 as the date on which the Explosive Substances (Amendment) Act, 2001 came into force. It is only under the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, as amended by the Explosive Substances (Amendment) Act, 2001 that the punishment for the offence under Section 4 thereof has been stipulated as, inter alia, imprisonment for life. In the present case, we have already mentioned that the appellant, after having been found guilty of having committed the offences under Sections 4 and 5 of the said Act was sentenced to imprisonment for life alongwith a fine of Rs 25,000/- and three years rigorous imprisonment in default thereof. Since the 2001 amendment was to operate prospectively and, more particularly in view of the provisions of Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India, whereunder it is stipulated that no person shall be subjected to a penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of commission of the offence (as also held in State v. Gian Singh: (1999) 9 SCC 312), it is clear that the sentence of imprisonment for life could not have been given to the appellant. This is so because Sections 4 and 5 of the said Act prior to its amendment in 2001 did not provide for any sentence of imprisonment for life. The provisions of Sections 4 and 5, as applicable on the date of commission of the offence, i.e., on 30.08.1999 read as under:-