Question

LEGAL PRINCIPLE: No person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of a law in force at the time of commission of the act charged as an offence, nor subjected to a penalty greater than which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time commission of the offence.
FACTUAL SITUATION: A boy of 16 years was convicted of house trepass and theft. He was sentenced to imprisonment for 6 months and fine was also imposed. After the judgement, the Probation of Offenders Act came into force. It provided that a person below 21 years may not ordinarily be sentenced to imprisonment. Now the boy claims the benefit of this Act. Should he get it?
DECISION will be ______.

• A. No
• B. The rule of beneficial interpretation required that the benefit of ex post facto law can be applied to reduce his sentence
• C. A boy below 18 years is a minor and so should not be punished
• D. None of the above

Answer 1

Answer: (B)

The rule of beneficial interpretation required that the benefit of ex post facto law can be applied to reduce his sentence

The principle is enshrined under Article 20 of the constitution of India.

Questions like these can be very tricky as there is no direct application of the principle to the facts. The direct application of the principle to the facts will result that the boy cannot claim the benefit of the ACT as he when the act of trespass and theft was committed was an offence under the law then.

But such an option is not given in the answers. Option A cannot be the answer as he should not get the benefits under the ACT since the act came after the commision of the offence by the boy. Similarly, Option C is irrelevant as the principle is silent about offence by an 18-year-old boy.

Generally the option 'none of the above' is the answer. Apart from the reasons given above, Option B states a true fact that the benefits of an act can have retrospective effect.