Repeal of penal law and reversal of acquittal require strict scrutiny before conviction can be sustained.

On repeal of a penal statute, prosecutions and investigations begun under the repealed law ordinarily continue under that law, and the later statute does not automatically substitute a new offence provision where the earlier enactment governed the conduct. The court also restated that an appellate court reversing an acquittal must meet the trial court's reasons and displace them with cogent grounds; a merely possible different view is insufficient. Applying these principles, the conviction based on the later Prevention of Corruption Act could not stand, and the reasoned acquittal was restored.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the prosecution and conviction could be sustained by applying Section 13(1)(e) and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 to conduct and proceedings that arose under Section 5(1)(e) and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. (ii) Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the acquittal recorded by the trial court on the evidence adduced.

Issue (i): Whether the prosecution and conviction could be sustained by applying Section 13(1)(e) and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 to conduct and proceedings that arose under Section 5(1)(e) and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.

Analysis: The offence alleged had been committed and the FIR had been lodged when the 1947 Act was in force. Section 30(2) of the 1988 Act did not substitute Section 13 in place of Section 5 of the repealed Act. Read with Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, repeal did not affect the previous operation of the repealed enactment or investigations and proceedings already initiated. The 1988 Act also introduced a materially different legal position, including the explanation to Section 13(1)(e), which was not available under Section 5(1)(e) of the 1947 Act.

Conclusion: The High Court was wrong in treating the case as one under the 1988 Act, and the conviction on that footing could not be sustained.

Issue (ii): Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the acquittal recorded by the trial court on the evidence adduced.

Analysis: In an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court was required to deal with the reasons supporting the acquittal and displace them by cogent reasoning. The trial court's appreciation of the testimony was held to be sound and reasonable. The explanation regarding the amounts said to be beyond known sources of income found support in the prosecution evidence itself, and the High Court had not shown any flaw in the trial court's view. A merely different possible view was not enough to overturn acquittal.

Conclusion: The reversal of acquittal was unwarranted and could not stand.

Final Conclusion: The conviction recorded by the High Court was set aside, the trial court's acquittal was restored, and the appellant obtained complete relief.

Ratio Decidendi: On repeal of a penal statute, proceedings must ordinarily continue under the repealed law where the act and prosecution arose under it, and an appellate court should not overturn a reasoned acquittal unless the trial court's view is shown to be unreasonable or perverse.

---