https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280451 A notification validly issued under Section 10 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932 did not cease to operate merely because the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 was repealed and replaced by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Applying Section 8(1) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and the saving scheme in Section 484 of the 1973 Code, the reference in the notification to the repealed procedural code was construed as a reference to the corresponding re-enacted code. The Court rejected the contrary view, held that the notification dated 27-6-1973 with the corrigendum dated 5-7-1973 remained operative, and sustained the legal effect of the notification. en-us Tue, 10 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 05 May 2019 08:43:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280451 A notification validly issued under Section 10 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932 did not cease to operate merely because the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 was repealed and replaced by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Applying Section 8(1) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and the saving scheme in Section 484 of the 1973 Code, the reference in the notification to the repealed procedural code was construed as a reference to the corresponding re-enacted code. The Court rejected the contrary view, held that the notification dated 27-6-1973 with the corrigendum dated 5-7-1973 remained operative, and sustained the legal effect of the notification. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 10 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280451