Savings clause after repeal could not sustain penalty under the old gold control regime; liability was set aside.

The Calcutta High Court considered whether a penalty under Rule 126L(16) of the Defence of India Rules, 1962 could survive repeal of Part XIIA and the savings clause in Section 117 of the Gold (Control) Ordinance. Applying the earlier Division Bench view, the Court held that the repeal and savings provision preserved only actions already taken and did not authorise continuation or creation of liability inconsistent with the new Ordinance. The penalty was therefore treated as unsustainable and set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the penalty of Rs. 10,000 imposed under Rule 126L(16) of the Defence of India Rules, 1962 could be sustained after repeal of Part XIIA of the Defence of India Rules and in view of the savings clause in Section 117 of the Gold (Control) Ordinance.

Analysis: The confiscation and penalty proceedings were founded on the pre-repeal Gold Control regime under Part XIIA of the Defence of India Rules, 1962. The Court applied the earlier Division Bench view that the repeal and savings provision preserved only actions already taken and did not authorise the creation or continuation of liability in a manner inconsistent with the new Ordinance. On that footing, the subsequent penalty imposed under Rule 126L(16) was treated as inconsistent with the legal position after repeal.

Conclusion: The penalty was held unsustainable and was set aside.

---