Limitation bar on excise prosecution falls away when the amending law applies before expiry of the defence period.

The Bombay HC considered whether prosecution under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 was barred by limitation under unamended Section 40(2). It held that the 19 May 1973 amendment displaced the earlier six-month bar and, because the amendment took effect before the limitation period had expired, no vested right to immunity from prosecution had accrued. The principle that accrued rights are not taken away except by express provision or necessary implication was recognised, but found inapplicable on these facts. The amended law therefore governed the pending liability, and the complaint was not time-barred.

---

---

Issues: Whether the prosecution for contravention of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 was barred by limitation in view of the unamended Section 40(2), and whether the amendment of 19 May 1973 removed any accrued right to resist prosecution.

Analysis: The unamended Section 40(2) provided a six-month bar, but the amendment substituted that regime and confined the new limitation language to proceedings against the Government or its officers. The Court held that, once the amendment came into force before the six-month period had expired, no vested immunity had accrued to the petitioners. The principle that an accrued right may not be taken away except by express provision or necessary implication was recognised, but it was found inapplicable because the limitation period had not matured into a complete defence when the law changed. Under the general law, criminal prosecution is not subject to such a limitation after the amendment.

Conclusion: The prosecution was not barred by limitation and the challenge to the complaint failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an amending provision removing a limitation bar comes into force before the expiry of the limitation period, no vested right to immunity from prosecution accrues, and the amended law governs the pending liability.

---