Continuation of pre-enactment proceedings under successor law upheld where the new statute preserved prior rights and liabilities.

Absence of addresses on name-tags attached to seized gold ornaments did not require further post-seizure investigation where meaningful verification of the alleged owners was impracticable, and the omission was not treated as a legal infirmity. In relation to pre-enactment offences, the Gold Control Act, 1968 was read as preserving rights and liabilities under the repealed law, so proceedings for an earlier offence could continue under the successor statute and support a reference under Section 82B. The repeal-based objection was rejected, and no referable question of law arose.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the absence of addresses on the name-tags on the seized gold ornaments required the Collector to make further investigations and whether failure to do so vitiated the proceedings. (ii) Whether proceedings in respect of an offence committed before the Gold Control Act, 1968 came into force could continue under the new Act and justify a reference under Section 82B of the Gold Control Act, 1968.

Issue (i): Whether the absence of addresses on the name-tags on the seized gold ornaments required the Collector to make further investigations and whether failure to do so vitiated the proceedings.

Analysis: The seized ornaments bore name-tags but no addresses, making meaningful verification of the alleged owners impracticable. On the facts, investigation after seizure would not have provided reliable assistance because the persons concerned would already have had time to prepare a defence. The lack of addresses meant that the Collector could not reasonably be faulted for not pursuing such inquiries, and the omission was not treated as a legal infirmity.

Conclusion: The contention based on alleged failure to investigate was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether proceedings in respect of an offence committed before the Gold Control Act, 1968 came into force could continue under the new Act and justify a reference under Section 82B of the Gold Control Act, 1968.

Analysis: The provisions of the Gold Control Act, 1968 were read as preserving the rights and liabilities arising under the repealed law. The Court applied the principle that, in the absence of a contrary intention, proceedings initiated under the repealed law continue under the new enactment. Section 116(2) was understood as supporting continuation of proceedings, and the argument based on Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 was not accepted as defeating that result.

Conclusion: Proceedings could continue under the Gold Control Act, 1968 for the earlier offence, and no reference was warranted.

Final Conclusion: The application was dismissed because neither the alleged investigative lapse nor the repeal-based objection established any referable question of law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the new enactment preserves the rights and liabilities under the repealed law and does not evince a contrary intention, proceedings for a pre-enactment offence may continue under the successor statute.

---