https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157568 A later Central amendment in a concurrent field was held to displace the earlier West Bengal amendment by implication because the two enactments created inconsistent punishment and procedure schemes. The general saving rule did not preserve the State amendment once the Central law showed a contrary intention, so the earlier harsher regime ceased to govern prosecutions. The amended law also applied to pending cases, including summary trial under section 16A, because an accused has no vested right to insist on the former punishment or procedure. The consequence was that pending prosecutions were governed by the amended scheme and attracted the reduced punishment. en-us Tue, 07 Dec 1982 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 31 Oct 2025 10:56:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157568 A later Central amendment in a concurrent field was held to displace the earlier West Bengal amendment by implication because the two enactments created inconsistent punishment and procedure schemes. The general saving rule did not preserve the State amendment once the Central law showed a contrary intention, so the earlier harsher regime ceased to govern prosecutions. The amended law also applied to pending cases, including summary trial under section 16A, because an accused has no vested right to insist on the former punishment or procedure. The consequence was that pending prosecutions were governed by the amended scheme and attracted the reduced punishment. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 07 Dec 1982 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157568