Retrospective amendment cannot create criminal liability for disobedience of invalid summons issued without legal authority.

A retrospective amendment to Section 108 of the Customs Act could not validate summons issued by an officer who lacked authority when they were served, because criminal liability under Sections 174 and 175 of the Indian Penal Code required valid legal competence at the time of issuance. The court held that a later amendment may cure procedural competence, but it cannot retrospectively create an offence or punish prior non-compliance where the summons was invalid when issued. As ex post facto criminal liability is barred by Article 20 of the Constitution, the complaint disclosed no offence and the proceedings, including the summoning order, were liable to be quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a retrospective amendment to Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 could validate summons issued by an officer who lacked authority when the summons were issued and thereby sustain prosecution under Sections 174 and 175 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Analysis: The summons were issued at a time when the officer was not duly empowered under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 as it then stood. The later amendment, though capable of conferring procedural competence retrospectively, could not convert prior non-compliance with an invalid summons into a criminal offence. A retrospective law cannot create an offence for an act or omission that was not punishable when committed, and Article 20 of the Constitution of India prohibits ex post facto criminal liability. Since valid competence to issue the summons was a condition precedent to any offence under Sections 174 and 175 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the complaint disclosed no offence on its face and the High Court could exercise inherent jurisdiction to quash the proceedings.

Conclusion: The retrospective amendment did not make the petitioner's alleged non-compliance criminally punishable, and the complaint and summoning order were liable to be quashed in favour of the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: A retrospective amendment may cure procedural competence, but it cannot retrospectively create criminal liability for disobedience of a summons issued without legal authority when the alleged default occurred.

---