Repeal-and-saving clause preserved complaint authority for saved foreign exchange prosecutions, validating cognizance under the repealed law.

A repeal-and-saving clause preserving prosecutions for offences under the repealed foreign exchange law for two years kept that law operative for the limited purpose of such saved offences. On that construction, the earlier authorisation of Enforcement Officers to file complaints remained effective during the statutory sunset period, because the complaint mechanism could not be treated as extinguished while prosecutions were expressly preserved. The complaint filed by the authorised officer was therefore valid, and the challenge to cognizance failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a complaint for offences under the repealed foreign exchange law, filed by an Enforcement Officer and cognizance taken within the statutory sunset period after repeal, remained valid in view of the repeal and saving provisions.

Analysis: The repeal provision in the successor enactment expressly saved pending prosecutions for offences committed under the repealed law for two years from commencement. Within that period, the repealed law continued to govern such offences by legal fiction, and the authorisation earlier conferred on Enforcement Officers to file complaints was not rendered ineffective for the limited purpose of prosecuting saved offences. A contrary construction would make the complaint mechanism under the repealed law otiose during the very period in which prosecutions were preserved, which could not be accepted.

Conclusion: The complaint filed by the authorised Enforcement Officer was valid, and the challenge to cognizance failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a repeal-and-saving clause preserves prosecution of offences under the repealed statute for a limited period, the provisions of the repealed law continue to operate for that limited purpose, including the authority of duly authorised officers to institute the complaint.

---