Statutory references by reference continue after repeal, and executive notification cannot rewrite PMLA scheduled offences.

References in the PMLA Schedule to IPC offences operate as references to the corresponding BNS offences where the Schedule uses section-based reference drafting rather than textual incorporation. Section 8(1) of the General Clauses Act applies on repeal and reenactment unless a contrary intention appears, and no such contrary intention is indicated in the PMLA. A central government notification cannot amend or rewrite statutory references without legislative authority, and executive authentication does not give it independent law-making force. The practical effect is that the scheduled predicate offences continue to apply by reference to the re-enacted BNS provisions.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether references in the Schedule to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 to offences under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 continue to operate, after repeal of the IPC, as references to the corresponding offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; (ii) whether the Central Government notification dated 16 July 2024, purporting to substitute IPC references with BNS references, has the force of law or validly alters statutory references.

Issue (i): Whether references in the Schedule to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 to offences under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 continue to operate, after repeal of the IPC, as references to the corresponding offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

Analysis: The Schedule to the PMLA refers to IPC offences by section number as predicate offences, without reproducing their text. Such drafting was treated as legislation by reference, not incorporation. In a repeal-and-reenactment situation, Section 8(1) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 applies unless a different intention appears. The PMLA contains no contrary indication showing that Parliament intended the Schedule to freeze the references to the IPC as it stood at enactment. The purpose of the PMLA would be frustrated if its operation were made to depend on the continued existence of the IPC nomenclature, especially when the same offences are substantially re-enacted in the BNS.

Conclusion: The IPC references in the PMLA Schedule are to be read as references to the corresponding BNS provisions, and the BNS offences in question continue to qualify as scheduled offences.

Issue (ii): Whether the Central Government notification dated 16 July 2024, purporting to substitute IPC references with BNS references, has the force of law or validly alters statutory references.

Analysis: Section 8(1) of the General Clauses Act is only a rule of interpretation and does not confer legislative power on the Executive. The power to construe statutory references remains with the Court. Article 73 does not authorise the Executive to amend or rewrite statutes, and Article 77 requires proper authentication of executive acts. A notification issued without statutory authority or valid authentication cannot create binding legal norms or alter the meaning of enacted law.

Conclusion: The notification does not amount to law, does not validly substitute statutory references, and has no independent legal effect for the present purpose.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the maintainability of the PMLA proceedings on the ground that the predicate offences stand excluded by the repeal of the IPC fails, and the bail application is rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a special statute refers to offences in a repealed penal law by way of reference and not incorporation, the references continue to operate under Section 8(1) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 as references to the corresponding re-enacted provisions, unless a contrary intention clearly appears.

---