https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273564 The amended electricity law required notice of an accident in the prescribed form and within the prescribed time, and the earlier notification fixing those particulars continued in force under Section 24 of the General Clauses Act because it was not inconsistent with the re-enacted provision and had not been superseded. The continued notification was treated as law in force for criminal liability, so the Article 20 challenge failed. On the facts, immediate knowledge of the accident's time, place, nature and probable cause reached the Electrical Inspector, and a written notice within 24 hours was impossible because the injured persons were unavailable. The court treated this as substantial compliance and regarded literal written notice as an idle formality. en-us Thu, 03 Dec 1964 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 02 Jul 2018 17:17:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273564 The amended electricity law required notice of an accident in the prescribed form and within the prescribed time, and the earlier notification fixing those particulars continued in force under Section 24 of the General Clauses Act because it was not inconsistent with the re-enacted provision and had not been superseded. The continued notification was treated as law in force for criminal liability, so the Article 20 challenge failed. On the facts, immediate knowledge of the accident's time, place, nature and probable cause reached the Electrical Inspector, and a written notice within 24 hours was impossible because the injured persons were unavailable. The court treated this as substantial compliance and regarded literal written notice as an idle formality. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 03 Dec 1964 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273564