Criminal statutes operate prospectively; unfair means legislation cannot apply to examinations conducted prior to its enactment.

The applicant (Accused No. 11) was implicated in FIR No. 11198068230274 of 2023 for allegedly allowing a dummy candidate to appear on his behalf in a Junior Clerk examination held on February 12, 2017

While the alleged act occurred in 2017, the FIR was registered on April 14, 2023—nearly 11 years after the broader conspiracy began and several years after the specific exam

The police charged the applicant under various sections of the IPC and the Information Technology Act, as well as Sections 12(1), 12(3), and 12(4) of the Gujarat Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2023

The applicant moved the High Court to quash the charges specifically relating to the 2023 Examination Act, arguing that the law cannot be applied retrospectively to an act committed in 2017

Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India, which prohibits the conviction of a person for an act that was not an offence at the time of its commission (ex post facto laws)

Section 5 of the General Clauses Act, which establishes the presumption that statutes are prospective unless stated otherwise

Legal maxim lex prospicit non respicit (the law looks forward, not backward)

Precedent set in Assistant Excise Commissioner, Kottayam v. Esthappan Cherian, which held that laws affecting substantive rights cannot be construed as retrospective without express legislative intent

The court reasoned that the Gujarat Public Examination Act, 2023, came into force on March 3, 2023, whereas the alleged offence (using a dummy candidate) took place in 2017

Since the Act does not contains any provision for retrospective application, the court held that charging the applicant under this new law for past conduct violates the constitutional protection against ex post facto criminalization

The court noted that a Coordinate Bench had already discharged co-accused in the same case on identical grounds, emphasizing that an individual can only be tried under the laws in force at the time of the alleged offence

Consequently, applying the 2023 Act to a 2017 incident was deemed "bad, illegal, and violative of fundamental rights"

The Court quashed the FIR and subsequent proceedings (Sessions Case No. 64 of 2023) qua the applicant specifically for the offences under Sections 12(1), 12(3), and 12(4) of the Gujarat Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2023

The charges under the Indian Penal Code and the Information Technology Act remain unaffected as they were not challenged in this petition