Retrospective amendment cannot create criminal liability for non-compliance with summons issued without valid authority.

Summons issued under Section 108 of the Customs Act by an officer lacking contemporaneous empowerment could not found prosecution under Sections 174 and 175 IPC for non-compliance. The later retrospective amendment could regularise procedural competence, but it could not retrospectively create penal liability where no offence existed when the alleged omission occurred. Article 20 bars ex post facto criminal liability, and the default was not a continuing offence because the summons were not akin to a warrant. As the validity of the summons was a foundational requirement for invoking the penal provisions, the criminal complaint and summoning order were quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner could be prosecuted under Sections 174 and 175 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for non-compliance with summons issued under Section 108 of the Customs Act when, on the dates of issuance, the issuing officer was not duly empowered by the Central Government and the later retrospective amendment could not create a substantive offence.

Analysis: The summons were issued when the Customs officer lacked the requisite empowerment under Section 108 of the Customs Act. The later amendment and notification could regularise the officer's procedural competence, but a retrospective procedural change cannot convert an earlier non-compliance into a criminal offence when no offence existed at the time of the alleged omission. Article 20 of the Constitution of India bars ex post facto criminal liability. The Court also held that the summons were not a continuing mandate like a warrant, and the alleged default could not be treated as a continuing offence. Since the validity of the summons was a foundational requirement for attracting Sections 174 and 175 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the complaint disclosed no sustainable offence.

Conclusion: The prosecution under Sections 174 and 175 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was not maintainable, and the summoning order and criminal complaint were quashed in favour of the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: Criminal proceedings founded solely on non-compliance with summons issued by an officer lacking contemporaneous authority could not be sustained after a retrospective curative amendment, as such amendment could not retrospectively create penal liability.

Ratio Decidendi: A retrospective amendment may cure procedural competence, but it cannot retrospectively create a criminal offence or sustain prosecution for non-compliance with a summons that was invalid when issued.

---