1954 (10) TMI 38 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction under Act, Rejects Sentence Enhancement

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment. The Court held that the respondent's conviction under the Act was valid, as ... Whether the fact of the repeal of the Ordinance being followed by reenactment would make the provision of section 6 of the General Clauses Act inapplicable to the present case? Held that:- The provisions of section 6 of the General Clauses Act will, in our opinion, apply to a case of repeal even if there is simultaneous enactment unless a contrary intention can be gathered from the new enactment. The result is that the appeal is allowed and the judgment of the High Court set aside. Appeal allowed. Issues Involved1. Competence of the Magistrate to convict under the Act for an offense committed under the Ordinance.2. Applicability of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act in cases of simultaneous repeal and re-enactment.Detailed AnalysisCompetence of the Magistrate to Convict Under the ActThe primary issue was whether the Magistrate had the authority to convict the respondent under the Act for an offense committed under the repealed Ordinance. The respondent had filed a false claim under the Ordinance, which was later replaced by the Act. The High Court ruled that the respondent could not be convicted under the Act since it was not in force when the offense was committed. However, the Supreme Court noted that the prosecution was started under the Act and not the Ordinance, and emphasized that no one could be prosecuted under a law not in force at the time of the offense. The Court suggested that the conviction could be altered to one under the Ordinance, provided the respondent could be prosecuted and punished under the Ordinance even after its repeal.Applicability of Section 6 of the General Clauses ActThe State argued that Section 6 of the General Clauses Act should apply, preserving liabilities incurred under the repealed Ordinance. Section 6(c) and (d) state that the repeal of an enactment does not affect any right, privilege, obligation, liability, penalty, forfeiture, or punishment incurred under the repealed enactment. The High Court, however, held that Section 6 applies only to simple repeals and not to cases where the repeal is followed by re-enactment, unless the new Act expressly saves the old liabilities.The Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court's interpretation, stating that Section 6 applies unless the new enactment shows a contrary intention. The Court emphasized that the absence of a saving clause in the new Act does not automatically indicate an intention to extinguish old liabilities. The Court examined Section 4 of the Act, which provided that claims filed under the Ordinance would be treated as claims under the Act, thus implying that the penal provisions of the Act could apply to false claims filed under the Ordinance.The Court further noted that interpreting the Act to exclude penal provisions for claims filed under the Ordinance would lead to anomalous results, such as the inability to cancel fraudulent allotments. Therefore, the Court concluded that the new Act did not manifest an intention to extinguish liabilities incurred under the Ordinance, thereby attracting the operation of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act.ConclusionThe Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment. The Court held that the respondent's conviction under the Act was valid, as the Act did not intend to extinguish liabilities incurred under the Ordinance. The sentence passed by the Magistrate was upheld, and the respondent was required to pay the fine or face rigorous imprisonment. The appeal was allowed, and the reference for enhancement of the sentence was deemed unnecessary.