Allowing the criminal petitions, that at the relevant point in time, when the amounts were alleged to have been deposited by the assessees in the bank in Singapore in the year 2009-10, the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of tax Act, 2015 was not in existence and came into effect only on July 1, 2015. Therefore, all the facts had happened five years prior to the Act itself coming into force. What was given effect to under section 72(c) was a deeming section which created a criminal liability. It was a matter of record that all the facts that became the offences were alleged to have happened five years prior to the 2015 Act coming into force. A special enactment is a statute, whereas the Constitution of India is not a statute, but the fountain head of all the statutes including the special statute. Article 20 comes under Chapter III of the Constitution of India, a fundamental right, which makes it a fundamental right to a person who would be convicted of an offence except for violation of law in force at the time of commission of the act charged as an offence, not to be subjected to a penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted under the law in force. The prosecution initiated against these assessees did not and could not pass constitutional muster under article 20 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the 2015 Act failed to pass muster of article 20 of the Constitution of India. Non-disclosure in an assessment of the tax return for the year 2007-08 or 2009-10 could not be used to prosecute the assessees, under an Act that had come into force in the year 2015. The law, as on the date alleged, was not the law of such disclosure of assessment. Therefore, on the facts, the criminal law could not be set into motion against the assessees. Therefore, the criminal proceedings pending before the Additional Judicial Magistrate were quashed. (AY.2019-20)