Repeal and re-enactment saving rule keeps anti-corruption investigation notifications alive under the new statute.

On repeal and re-enactment, notifications authorising Inspectors of Police to investigate corruption offences continued to operate under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 because Section 30 had to be read with the general saving rules in Sections 6 and 24 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. The earlier notifications were not inconsistent with Section 17 of the 1988 Act, so they were deemed to survive and remain effective until superseded. Investigations conducted by the authorised Inspectors were therefore valid, the quashing of proceedings was unsustainable, and the prosecutions were directed to proceed according to law.

---

---

Issues: Whether notifications issued under Section 5A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 authorising Inspectors of Police to investigate corruption offences survived the repeal and re-enactment of the law so as to remain effective under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and whether investigations carried out by such officers were valid.

Analysis: Section 30 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is a repeal-and-saving provision and must be read with Sections 6 and 24 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. Section 24 preserves appointments, notifications, orders, rules and similar instruments made under a repealed and re-enacted enactment so far as they are not inconsistent with the re-enacted law, and deems them to have been made under the new enactment until superseded. The notifications authorising Inspectors of Police to investigate offences were issued under the earlier Act and there was no inconsistency between the earlier investigative power and Section 17 of the 1988 Act. The saving language in Section 30 did not exclude the operation of Section 24, and the re-enacted statute could not be construed so as to render the existing notifications ineffective or the new law unworkable.

Conclusion: The notifications remained operative and were deemed to continue under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 until superseded, and the investigations made by the authorised Inspectors were valid.

Final Conclusion: The quashing of the proceedings was unsustainable, and the prosecutions were directed to proceed according to law.

Ratio Decidendi: On repeal and re-enactment, prior notifications continue in force under the new statute unless they are inconsistent with it or are superseded, and the saving provision must be construed with the general saving rules under the General Clauses Act.

---