Repeal of a confiscatory statute does not undo final confiscation; prior consequences remain preserved absent a saving clause.

Repleal of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 did not revive a claim for return of gold already confiscated and for which the conviction and confiscation order had long attained finality. Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 preserved the prior operation of the repealed Act and the consequences already incurred, while the repeal contained no saving clause or contrary legislative direction requiring restitution of seized gold. The petitioners' relied-on precedent was distinguished on its facts and exceptional context. The petition was therefore held not maintainable on the ground urged, and the prayer for return of the gold was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petition seeking quashing of the order refusing return of gold confiscated under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 and consequential relief after repeal of that Act could be entertained.

Analysis: The conviction of the first petitioner under Section 85 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 and Section 135(b) of the Customs Act, 1962, as well as the confiscation order, had attained finality decades earlier and were never challenged further. The repeal of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 did not contain any saving provision or substantive clause directing return of gold already seized or confiscated during the currency of that Act. Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 preserved the previous operation of the repealed enactment and consequences already incurred, and the decision relied upon by the petitioners was distinguished as turning on its own exceptional context.

Conclusion: The petition was not maintainable on the ground urged and the prayer for return of the gold could not be accepted.

Ratio Decidendi: Repeal of a fiscal confiscatory statute does not undo proceedings and consequences that had already attained finality before repeal, in the absence of a contrary legislative intention or saving provision.

---