Appeals Dismissed, Retroactive Law Validated. Trial Remanded from 1964. Constitutionality Upheld.

The appeals were dismissed, affirming the validity of reintroducing Section 5(3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 retrospectively. The case was remanded for trial from the stage it was pending on 18th December 1964. The Court held that the retrospective application of Section 5(3) did not violate Articles 14 and 20(1) of the Constitution, as it revived the previous procedure without creating a new offence.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the repeal and reintroduction of Section 5(3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
2. Constitutionality of retrospective application of Section 5(3) under Article 14 and 20(1) of the Constitution.
3. Effect of the repeal of Section 5(3) on ongoing legal proceedings.

Summary:

1. Validity of the repeal and reintroduction of Section 5(3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947:
The appellant was charged u/s 120-B IPC for criminal conspiracy and specific offences u/s 161 IPC read with Section 5(2) and Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The Special Judge acquitted the appellant, noting that Section 5(3) had been repealed on 18th December 1964, and specific instances of bribery could not be proved. However, the assets of the appellant were found disproportionate to his known sources of income. The High Court later upheld the validity of Act No. 16 of 1967, which reintroduced Section 5(3) retrospectively, and remanded the case for trial from the stage it was pending on 18th December 1964.

2. Constitutionality of retrospective application of Section 5(3) under Article 14 and 20(1) of the Constitution:
The appellant contended that the retrospective application of Section 5(3) by Act No. 16 of 1967 was void and unconstitutional, violating Articles 14 and 20(1) of the Constitution. The Court held that Section 5(3) merely prescribed a rule of evidence and did not create a new offence. The retrospective application of the rule of evidence did not violate Article 20(1) as it did not create a new offence or impose a new penalty but revived the procedure that was in force when the offence was committed.

3. Effect of the repeal of Section 5(3) on ongoing legal proceedings:
The Court noted that the repeal of Section 5(3) by Act 40 of 1964 did not obliterate its previous operation. Section 6 of the General Clauses Act preserved the legal proceedings and consequences of such proceedings as if the repealing Act had not been passed. Therefore, the rule of evidence under Section 5(3) was available for offences committed before its repeal. The Court dismissed the appellant's contention that the retrospective application of Section 5(3) created a new offence, affirming that the old procedure was merely revived.

Conclusion:
The appeals were dismissed, upholding the validity of the retrospective application of Section 5(3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and the remand of the case for trial from the stage it was pending on 18th December 1964. The Court found no violation of Articles 14 and 20(1) of the Constitution.

---