Harmonious reading of repeal-and-saving provisions preserves criminal cognizance under the repealed foreign exchange law.

Section 49 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 must be read as a harmonised repeal-and-saving scheme preserving proceedings under the repealed Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The provision does not exclude criminal cognizance merely because the complaint was filed after repeal; instead, it retains both prosecution and adjudication within the statutory framework and fixes an outer limit for taking cognizance. The word "and" in sub-section (3) is not to be severed from the saving structure, because that would defeat the legislative object. On this construction, cognizance taken within the statutory framework was valid, the challenge to process failed, and the order issuing process was sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether Section 49(3) of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 bars a criminal court from taking cognizance of offences under the repealed Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 after the expiry of two years from the commencement of the 1999 Act, thereby rendering the complaint and process unsustainable.

Analysis: Section 49 had to be read as a whole and in harmony with the other saving provisions. The repeal of the 1973 Act did not abolish all proceedings under it; rather, the legislature preserved both criminal prosecution and adjudication, while fixing an outer limit for the court to take cognizance and for the adjudicating officer to take notice. The phraseology in sub-section (3), including the word "and", was not to be severed so as to exclude criminal cognizance from the time limit. Reading the provision otherwise would defeat the object of the repeal-and-saving scheme and render the statutory language ineffective.

Conclusion: Section 49(3) does not create a bar against cognizance of offences under the repealed Act merely because the complaint was filed after repeal; cognizance taken within the statutory framework was valid, and the challenge to the process failed.

Final Conclusion: The applications were rejected, and the order issuing process was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A repeal-and-saving provision must be construed harmoniously so that criminal cognizance of offences under the repealed enactment survives where the statute expressly preserves such proceedings within the stipulated time limit.

---