Repeal of an amending Act does not erase the inserted offence where saving law preserves the amendment.

The repeal of the 1949 amending Act did not extinguish section 6(1-A) inserted into the Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933, because the repeal-saving language in the 1952 Repealing and Amending Act did not apply to an amendment made by a later Act to a principal Act. Section 6-A of the General Clauses Act, 1897 preserved the amendment unless a contrary legislative intention appeared, and no such intention was shown. Section 6(1-A) therefore remained operative when the offence was committed, sustaining the conviction and sentence.

---

---

Issues: Whether the repeal of the 1949 amending Act affected the continuance of section 6(1-A) inserted in the Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933, so as to invalidate the appellant's conviction and sentence.

Analysis: The 1949 amendment inserted section 6(1-A) into the principal Act, creating a distinct offence of possessing a wireless transmitter. The 1952 Repealing and Amending Act repealed the amending Act, but its saving provision was directed to cases where a repealed enactment had been applied, incorporated or referred to in another enactment. That language did not cover an amendment made by a later Act to an earlier Act. The case was governed instead by section 6-A of the General Clauses Act, 1897, which preserves amendments made by a repealed enactment unless a different intention appears. The repeal of the amending Act did not indicate any contrary intention, and the legislative history did not show that section 6(1-A) was surplusage or redundant.

Conclusion: Section 6(1-A) continued in force after the repeal of the 1949 amending Act, and it was operative when the offence was committed.

Ratio Decidendi: Repeal of an amending Act does not, by itself, efface the amendment inserted into the principal Act where section 6-A of the General Clauses Act, 1897 applies and no contrary legislative intention is shown.

---