D.S. Mathur, J. - (1.) THIS application for taking proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act against Sri K.S. Azad, Editor, Guruwani newspaper, has been made by Sri Niranjan Prasad Agrawal on 6 -7 -1970. The Contempt committed is of the court of Sri Bidesi, SDM, Mathura, in whose court the criminal case Smt. Ketuki v. Khemchandra Under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was pending. The application arises out of the following news item published in the Guruwani newspaper on 21 -2 -1970: Ketuki banam Khemchandra ke Mukadma men ghotala munshi ke parche ke upar Khemchandra ki tarikhon ko teen bar hataya ek dhogi neta 1 oor se 4 sau aur ek oor se 1000 dakar gaye aur sampadak ko badnam karne ki firak men hai pata nahin uski niji dalali hai ya hakim ke sanket par enke court ke ghotala ki sikayat D.M. Basti ne bhi ke batai hai kramsha.
(2.) THE opposite party Sri K.S. Azad put in appearance in court and stated that he could prove his allegations against the Applicant. Thereupon, Hon'ble M.H. Beg. J. ordered on 3 -12 -1970 that an inquiry be conducted by the Sessions Judge, Mathura. The Sessions Judge conducted the inquiry and submitted his report dated 18 -12 -1971. He was of the opinion that the allegations made against Sri Niranjan Prasad Agrawal were incorrect. Subsequently, on 23 -5 -1973 an application was made on behalf of the opposite party raising an objection to the maintainability of the contempt application on the ground that after the coming into force on 24 -12 -1971 of the new Contempt of Courts Act (Act No. 70 of 1971), no permission of the Advocate General had been obtained. It was contended before us that the amendments made by the new Act were in the procedure and therefore, the amendments shall have a retrospective effect and shall apply to pending cases also. On the other band, the contention of the learned Advocate for the Applicant is that the amendments in so far as the present objection is concerned affect the substantive rights also and therefore, not merely procedural and such amendments cannot have a retrospective effect. Reliance is also placed upon Section 6 of the General Clauses Act.
(3.) THE law on whether an amending Act has a retrospective operation, applicable to pending cases also or can merely be applied prospectively to fresh cases can be said to be beyond controversy. In brief, amendment in procedure has a retrospective effect while the amendment in the substantive law applies prospectively. Controversy very often arises in whether the amendments, made are procedural or substantive. It will, therefore, be proper to first of all make a reference to the decisions of the Supreme Court and of the High Courts which have been brought to our notice.;