https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194123 The repeal of section 5(3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 did not displace the presumption in a pending appeal because the provision formed part of the procedural law, and section 6 of the General Clauses Act preserved prior proceedings and valid steps already taken. The Magistrate's authorisation for investigation under section 5A was valid because he applied his mind to the material and did not act mechanically. The charge was not vitiated by lack of fuller particulars, as the accused was not shown to have been misled or to have suffered a failure of justice. The conviction was upheld. en-us Tue, 15 Oct 1968 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 29 Aug 2017 18:22:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194123 The repeal of section 5(3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 did not displace the presumption in a pending appeal because the provision formed part of the procedural law, and section 6 of the General Clauses Act preserved prior proceedings and valid steps already taken. The Magistrate's authorisation for investigation under section 5A was valid because he applied his mind to the material and did not act mechanically. The charge was not vitiated by lack of fuller particulars, as the accused was not shown to have been misled or to have suffered a failure of justice. The conviction was upheld. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 15 Oct 1968 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194123