As per case facts, the appellants occupied shop rooms since 1916, prior to the alleged wakf creation in 1951 and the Wakf Act. Despite ongoing civil disputes, an interpleader suit ... where they were permitted to pay rent, and prior rulings that they were not unauthorized occupants, a criminal complaint was filed against them under the newly amended Section 52A of the Wakf Act, 1995. The High Court rejected their petition to quash the complaint, stating that upon termination of tenancy, they became 'encroachers' as per the amended Act. The question arose whether Section 52A of the Wakf Act, as amended in 2013, could be applied retrospectively to penalize possession that began lawfully long before the amendment, thereby treating existing tenants as 'encroachers' and violating Article 20(1) of the Constitution, which prohibits ex post facto criminal laws. Finally, the Supreme Court ruled that penal provisions cannot be applied retrospectively. The Court held that the definition of 'encroacher' and the penal provisions of Section 52A cannot be interpreted to cover possession taken in the past, even if it resulted in continued possession when the amendment came into force, as such an interpretation would directly violate fundamental rights under Article 20(1). The expression 'Whoever alienates or purchases or takes possession of' in Section 52A does not include possession that commenced lawfully in the past. Consequently, the impugned High Court judgment was set aside, and the appeal was allowed, quashing the criminal proceedings.