Change of trial forum is procedural and retrospective, with no vested right to a particular court.

A change in the forum of trial was treated as procedural and therefore applied retrospectively absent a contrary legislative indication. No litigant has a vested right to be tried by a particular forum, and a case is instituted when the Magistrate takes cognizance under Section 190(1) CrPC. On the facts, no proceeding was pending before the Magistrate when the amendment came into force and the charge-sheet was filed later, so committal to the Sessions Court was legally valid. The broader objection to applying the amendment to pending matters was rejected, with prospective operation of the overruling limited to avoid hardship in cases already tried or at an advanced stage.

---

---

Issues: Whether the amendment to the First Schedule of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 changing the forum of trial from the Judicial Magistrate, First Class to the Court of Sessions applied to the appellant's case and to cases pending on the date the amendment came into force.

Analysis: The forum for trial is a matter of procedure. A litigant has no vested right in a particular forum, and a change in procedural law ordinarily operates retrospectively unless the statute indicates otherwise. A case is instituted when the Magistrate takes cognizance under Section 190(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. On the facts, no case was pending before the Magistrate on the date the amendment became operative, and the charge-sheet was filed thereafter. The committal to the Sessions Court was therefore legally valid. The broader argument that the amendment could not affect pending matters was also rejected, with the clarification that the overruling would operate prospectively to avoid hardship in cases already tried or at an advanced stage.

Conclusion: The amended forum provision applied to the appellant's case, and trial by the Court of Sessions was and valid. The challenge to committal failed.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed after affirming that the amendment shifting the trial forum was procedural, retrospective in operation absent a contrary indication, and did not confer any vested right to be tried by the earlier forum.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory change affecting only the forum of trial is procedural and, unless a contrary legislative intent appears, applies retrospectively; no litigant has a vested right to be tried by a particular forum.

---