Ex post facto protection does not prevent Sessions Court trial for pre-amendment SEBI offences or limit lawful sentencing power.

Article explains that Article 20(1) bars ex post facto conviction or punishment, but does not guarantee trial only by the forum or procedure in force when the offence was committed. For pre-amendment offences under the SEBI Act, a Sessions Court made competent by later amendment may try the case, while applying the procedure governing summons trials for such earlier offences. It also states that, once the Sessions Court has jurisdiction under the amended law, its sentencing power is not confined to the lower limits applicable to a Magistrate and extends to the punishment authorised by law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Sessions Court had jurisdiction to try offences under the SEBI Act after the 2002 amendment despite the offences having been committed earlier, and whether it could impose a fine beyond the limit applicable to a Magistrate.

Analysis: The petitioners challenged the conviction and sentence on the footing that the offence pre-dated the 2002 amendment and therefore the trial should have proceeded under the unamended procedure. The Court held that Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India prohibits conviction or punishment under an ex post facto law, but does not create a fundamental right to trial by a particular court or under a particular procedure. It relied on the earlier view that offences committed before the amendment could still be tried by the Sessions Court, while following the procedure applicable to summons trials for such pre-amendment offences. The Court further held that once the Sessions Court was competent to try the case under the amended SEBI Act, it was not constrained by the sentencing limits of a Magistrate and could impose the sentence authorised by law.

Conclusion: The challenge to the jurisdiction of the Sessions Court and to the quantum of fine failed; the trial and sentence were upheld against the petitioners.

Final Conclusion: The petition was found to be without merit and the impugned conviction-related relief was declined.

Ratio Decidendi: A pre-amendment offence may validly be tried by a court made competent by subsequent amendment, provided no ex post facto punishment is imposed, and the sentencing power exercisable is that of the competent trial court under the governing law, not the lesser limits applicable to the earlier forum.

---