https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184749 Section 30(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 repealed the 1947 Act, but Section 30(2) preserved things done or action taken under the repealed law and deemed them to have been done under the corresponding provisions of the 1988 Act. That saving language created a legal fiction displacing the ordinary effect of repeal under Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and allowed proceedings begun under the 1947 Act to continue before a court constituted under the 1988 Act. The Special Judge was therefore competent to try the offences, and the jurisdiction objection failed. en-us Wed, 13 May 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 19 Jul 2016 12:03:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184749 Section 30(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 repealed the 1947 Act, but Section 30(2) preserved things done or action taken under the repealed law and deemed them to have been done under the corresponding provisions of the 1988 Act. That saving language created a legal fiction displacing the ordinary effect of repeal under Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and allowed proceedings begun under the 1947 Act to continue before a court constituted under the 1988 Act. The Special Judge was therefore competent to try the offences, and the jurisdiction objection failed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 13 May 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184749