Omission of a penal provision without a saving clause bars pending prosecution under the repealed offence.

Omission of a penal provision without a saving clause prevents pending prosecutions from continuing under the omitted law. The article explains that section 276E was omitted by amendment with effect from 1 April 1989, and that in the absence of any saving provision, proceedings for contravention of section 269T could not survive under the omitted penal section. The prosecution under section 276E was therefore not maintainable, although the department remained free to proceed under section 271E.

---

---

Issues: Whether prosecution could continue for contravention of section 269T when the penal provision under section 276E had been omitted by amendment, and whether the remand order and conviction-related proceedings could survive in the absence of a saving clause.

Analysis: The omitted penal provision had been removed by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987 with effect from 1 April 1989. The judgment applied the principle that where a penal provision is omitted and a replacement provision is introduced without a saving clause, pending proceedings under the omitted provision do not continue. As no saving clause preserved pending prosecutions, the applicants could not be proceeded against under section 276E. The judgment also noted that the department remained at liberty to proceed under section 271E.

Conclusion: The prosecution under section 276E was not maintainable, and the revisional challenge succeeded.

---