Prospective statutory amendment and retained criminal court jurisdiction upheld for interim return of seized vehicle on security.

Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act was treated as prospective only, because the amendment contained no clear expression or necessary implication showing retrospective operation; it therefore did not apply to a contravention completed before commencement. The ordinary criminal court's jurisdiction to consider return of a seized vehicle was also held to survive, because exclusion of that jurisdiction must follow from irresistible implication and none was found in the statutory scheme. On that basis, interim release of the vehicle on security was upheld and the appeal failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the amendment introducing Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 operated retrospectively so as to apply to a contravention committed before its commencement; (ii) whether the criminal court retained jurisdiction to entertain an application for return of the seized vehicle pending confiscation proceedings under the Act.

Issue (i): Whether the amendment introducing Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 operated retrospectively so as to apply to a contravention committed before its commencement.

Analysis: The governing principle is that a statute is ordinarily prospective unless retrospective operation is made clear by express words or necessary implication. The amendment did not contain any such clear indication, and the statutory scheme showed that the amended provision was intended to operate from the specified date only. As the alleged contravention had occurred before the amendment came into force, the amended provision could not govern the case.

Conclusion: The amendment was held to be prospective only and inapplicable to the present facts.

Issue (ii): Whether the criminal court retained jurisdiction to entertain an application for return of the seized vehicle pending confiscation proceedings under the Act.

Analysis: Jurisdiction of ordinary criminal courts is not taken away unless exclusion follows by irresistible implication from the later enactment. Reading the relevant provisions together, there was no clear ouster of the criminal court's power. The court therefore continued to have jurisdiction to deal with the request for interim return of the vehicle on security.

Conclusion: The criminal court was held to retain jurisdiction and the order for return of the vehicle on furnishing security was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, and the respondent's entitlement to relief was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory amendment is not retrospective absent clear expression or necessary implication, and the jurisdiction of criminal courts is not excluded except by unavoidable implication from the later law.

---