Repeal and saving provisions preserve pending prosecutions under a repealed statute absent clear contrary legislative intent.

On repeal of the Gold (Control) Act, pending prosecutions were not extinguished because Section 6 of the General Clauses Act preserves accrued liabilities, penalties and ongoing proceedings unless the repealing law shows a different intention. The Statement of Objects and Reasons did not disclose any intent to terminate prosecutions already instituted under the repealed Act. Accordingly, past transactions and proceedings founded on them remained unaffected, and the request to quash the criminal prosecution was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the prosecution pending under the Gold (Control) Act could be quashed on the ground that the Act had been repealed, and whether the repeal manifested a different intention so as to displace the saving effect of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act.

Analysis: On repeal of an enactment, the consequences are governed by Section 6 of the General Clauses Act unless a different intention appears from the repealing law. A repeal does not, by itself, extinguish liabilities, penalties, or pending legal proceedings arising under the repealed statute. The Statement of Objects and Reasons for the repealing legislation did not show an intention to terminate all prosecutions or proceedings already initiated under the repealed Act. The cited authorities on repeal and retrospective operation supported the view that past and closed transactions, and proceedings founded on them, remain unaffected in the absence of a contrary legislative intent.

Conclusion: The repeal did not bar continuation of the prosecution, and the request to quash the criminal proceedings was rejected.

---