Saving clause preserves past liability, but constitutional repeal ends the only basis for continuing prosecution.

A saving clause can preserve liability for acts committed under the Defence of India Act and Rules after the Act expires, so past offences remain prosecutable notwithstanding expiry. However, where continuation of the prosecution depends only on Section 102(4) of the Government of India Act, 1935, the constitutional repeal of that Act ends that supporting basis. Article 372 preserves existing law in force, but Section 6 of the General Clauses Act does not extend to repeal of the Government of India Act by the Constitution. The result is that the prosecution cannot continue after 26-1-1950 when the enabling provision ceases to operate.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the prosecution for offences committed under the Defence of India Act and Rules could continue after the Act had expired, in view of the saving provisions in the constitutional and statutory framework. (ii) Whether the repeal of the Government of India Act by the Constitution destroyed the legal basis for continuing the prosecution.

Issue (i): Whether the prosecution for offences committed under the Defence of India Act and Rules could continue after the Act had expired, in view of the saving provisions in the constitutional and statutory framework.

Analysis: The Defence of India legislation operated during an emergency and contained saving provisions preserving liability for things already done or omitted to be done. The expiry of the Act did not obliterate past offences, and the amendment by the Ordinance was treated as an independent enactment capable of continuing the saving effect until repeal. On that footing, the past acts alleged against the applicants remained prosecutable notwithstanding the expiry of the Defence of India Act.

Conclusion: The prosecution was not barred merely because the Defence of India Act had expired.

Issue (ii): Whether the repeal of the Government of India Act by the Constitution destroyed the legal basis for continuing the prosecution.

Analysis: The only basis then supporting continuation of the prosecution was Section 102(4) of the Government of India Act, 1935. The Constitution repealed that Act, and although Article 372 preserved existing law in force, Section 6 of the General Clauses Act did not apply to repeal of the Government of India Act by the Constitution. Article 367 did not extend Section 6 to that repeal. Once the Government of India Act ceased to operate, the authority that had kept the prosecution alive also came to an end.

Conclusion: The repeal of the Government of India Act by the Constitution did not preserve the prosecution, and the proceedings could not continue after 26-1-1950.

Final Conclusion: The application succeeded and the proceedings were quashed because the constitutional repeal removed the only surviving legal basis for continuing the prosecution.

Ratio Decidendi: A saving clause can preserve liability for past acts after the expiry of a statute, but where the only enabling provision is contained in a repealed constitutional statute and the General Clauses Act does not apply to that repeal, the prosecution cannot continue after the repealing Constitution comes into force.

---