Repealed evidentiary provisions can still govern pending cases, and retrospective revival need not breach constitutional protection against ex post facto laws.

A repealed evidentiary provision may continue to apply to offences committed before repeal and to pending trials where the savings rule preserves prior operation and accrued consequences; section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 was therefore held to keep section 5(3) operative for pending proceedings. Retrospective revival of the same provision did not offend Article 20(1) because it neither created a new offence nor imposed enhanced punishment, but merely restored an evidentiary rule for past conduct. The repeal and retrospective amendment were accordingly upheld, and the direction for further trial was sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether repeal of section 5(3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, prevented its application to offences committed while it was in force and to pending proceedings; (ii) whether the retrospective revival and application of section 5(3) by Act No. 16 of 1967 violated Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): whether repeal of section 5(3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, prevented its application to offences committed while it was in force and to pending proceedings.

Analysis: Section 5(3) was treated as a rule of evidence and not as a separate offence. The repeal did not extinguish the legal effect of the provision for offences already committed, because the savings principle embodied in section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 preserved prior operation, accrued consequences, and pending proceedings unless a contrary intention appeared. The use of the presumption in pending cases was therefore not barred merely because the provision had been repealed prospectively.

Conclusion: The repeal did not bar reliance on section 5(3) for offences committed before repeal and pending trials continued to be governed by it.

Issue (ii): whether the retrospective revival and application of section 5(3) by Act No. 16 of 1967 violated Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: Article 20(1) prohibits conviction or enhanced punishment under an ex post facto law. The retrospective amendment here did not create a new offence or impose a greater penalty; it revived the earlier evidentiary rule for conduct already committed when that rule was in force. A change in procedure or evidence, in these circumstances, did not amount to an unconstitutional ex post facto enactment.

Conclusion: The retrospective application of section 5(3) did not violate Article 20(1) and was constitutionally valid.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on all substantial challenges, and the order directing further trial was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A repealed evidentiary provision may continue to govern pending proceedings and past offences by virtue of the savings rule in section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, and its retrospective revival does not offend Article 20(1) unless it creates a new offence or imposes a greater punishment.

---