Saving clause under the anti-corruption law preserved old proceedings and confirmed the Special Judge's jurisdiction after repeal.

Section 30(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 repealed the 1947 Act, but Section 30(2) preserved things done or action taken under the repealed law and deemed them to have been done under the corresponding provisions of the 1988 Act. That saving language created a legal fiction displacing the ordinary effect of repeal under Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and allowed proceedings begun under the 1947 Act to continue before a court constituted under the 1988 Act. The Special Judge was therefore competent to try the offences, and the jurisdiction objection failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Special Judge constituted under Section 3 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 had jurisdiction to try offences committed under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and to proceed on the basis of the report filed after the repeal of the 1947 Act.

Analysis: Section 3 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 cannot be read in isolation. Section 30(1) repeals the earlier enactment, but Section 30(2) expressly preserves the effect of things done or action taken under the repealed Act and provides that such acts shall be deemed to have been done or taken under the corresponding provisions of the 1988 Act. That language reflects a different legislative intention for the purposes of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and creates a legal fiction that supports continuation of proceedings despite repeal. The earlier decision on the effect of repeal and the later decision applying Section 30(2) confirm that proceedings initiated under the 1947 Act could continue before a court constituted under the 1988 Act.

Conclusion: The Special Judge was competent to try the offences and the objection to jurisdiction failed.

---