Temporary law prosecutions cannot survive expiry without a valid saving provision; repealed enactments cannot revive liability.

A prosecution for breach of a temporary law that expired by efflux of time could not be commenced or continued after expiry unless a saving provision validly survived and applied. Section 6 of the General Clauses Act did not preserve liability where the enactment ended by its own terms, and a saving clause inserted by a later ordinance could not assist once that ordinance was repealed before prosecution began. Section 102(4) of the Government of India Act also could not sustain the case after repeal by the Constitution, as Article 372 continued only laws then in force. The prosecution was therefore invalid.

---

---

Issues: Whether prosecution for offences committed under the Defence of India Act could be commenced or continued after the Act had expired, the saving ordinance was repealed, and the enabling provision in the Government of India Act was repealed by the Constitution.

Analysis: The Defence of India Act was a temporary law which expired by its own terms. In the absence of a saving provision, no prosecution could be commenced after expiry, and Section 6 of the General Clauses Act did not apply to an Act that merely came to an end by efflux of time. Although the Second Amendment Ordinance inserted a saving clause, that Ordinance itself was later repealed by the Repealing and Amending Act, 1947, and no prosecution had been initiated before the repeal took effect. The prosecution also could not be supported by Section 102(4) of the Government of India Act, 1935 after that Act was repealed by the Constitution, because Article 372 continued only laws then in force and did not revive a law that had already expired.

Conclusion: The prosecution could not be validly continued or freshly commenced, and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A prosecution for breach of a temporary law that has expired cannot be commenced after expiry unless a saving provision validly survives and applies; neither Section 6 of the General Clauses Act nor a repealed enabling enactment can revive or sustain such prosecution.

---