Repealed procedural code did not nullify a valid notification; saving and construction rules kept it operative.

A notification validly issued under Section 10 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932 did not cease to operate merely because the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 was repealed and replaced by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Applying Section 8(1) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and the saving scheme in Section 484 of the 1973 Code, the reference in the notification to the repealed procedural code was construed as a reference to the corresponding re-enacted code. The Court rejected the contrary view, held that the notification dated 27-6-1973 with the corrigendum dated 5-7-1973 remained operative, and sustained the legal effect of the notification.

---

---

Issues: Whether a notification issued under Section 10 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932 declaring certain offences cognizable and non-bailable continued to operate after the repeal of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 and the enactment of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: Section 10 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932 was a continuing central enactment conferring power on the State Government to notify specified offences as cognizable and, where applicable, non-bailable. The mere repeal of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 did not extinguish that power or the notification issued in exercise of it. The Court applied the principle of construction under Section 8(1) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and the saving framework in Section 484 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to hold that references in the notification to the repealed procedural code were to be read as references to the corresponding re-enacted code. The contrary view, which treated the notification as having ceased to operate upon repeal of the 1898 Code, was rejected.

Conclusion: The notification dated 27-6-1973 read with the corrigendum dated 5-7-1973 remained operative, and the impugned orders could not be sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A notification validly issued under a continuing enabling central statute does not lapse merely because the procedural code referred to in it is repealed and reenacted; by operation of the General Clauses Act, the reference is construed to the corresponding reenacted provision unless a contrary intention appears.

---