Prosecution after supersession remains valid where the offence was complete before the later order took effect.

Liability for a penal offence is fixed by the law in force when the act is committed, so supersession of the earlier Newspaper Control Order did not extinguish offences already completed. In the absence of a contrary intention in the later order, prosecutions for breaches of the 1942 Order could continue and the convictions were maintained. The sentence for the page-limit violation was then reduced because the breach was technical, the appellant had supplied additional pages to subscribers, the error stemmed from a mistaken view of the weekly count, and the complaint was brought long after the acts in question. The fine was reduced to Re. 1 on each count.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether prosecutions could continue for offences committed under the Newspaper Control Order, 1942, after it had been superseded by the Newspaper Control Order, 1944, in the absence of an express saving clause; (ii) whether the sentence imposed for the page-limit violation was excessive and called for reduction.

Issue (i): Whether prosecutions could continue for offences committed under the Newspaper Control Order, 1942, after it had been superseded by the Newspaper Control Order, 1944, in the absence of an express saving clause.

Analysis: Liability for a penal offence is determined by the law in force when the act is committed. The subsequent supersession of the earlier order did not erase the offence already completed. The principles underlying section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1887, though not directly applicable in terms, supplied the proper rule of interpretation. In the absence of a contrary intention in the superseding order, proceedings could be continued and punishment imposed for offences committed under the earlier order.

Conclusion: The convictions were rightly maintained.

Issue (ii): Whether the sentence imposed for the page-limit violation was excessive and called for reduction.

Analysis: The offence was technical in nature, the appellant had in effect provided more pages to subscribers, the mistake appears to have arisen from a mistaken view of the weekly count, and the prosecution was launched long after the acts complained of. These circumstances justified leniency.

Conclusion: The sentence was reduced to a nominal fine of Re. 1 on each count.

Final Conclusion: The judgment sustained the finding of guilt but granted substantial relief on punishment by reducing the fine.

Ratio Decidendi: A repeal or supersession does not defeat prosecution for an offence already completed unless the later enactment shows a contrary intention; the liability attaches when the offence is committed.

---