1991 (10) TMI 128

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....petitioner alleging that he committed violation of Section 27 of the Gold (Control) Act. The contention of the petitioner is that the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 was repealed by the Gold (Control) Repeal Bill, 1990 passed by the Parliament and therefore the prosecution initiated against the petitioner under the Gold (Control) Act is not sustainable and the petitioner-accused should be discharged. It is contended that the effect of the repeal is to obliterate the statute repealed completely as if it had never been passed and it must be considered as a law which never existed. The petition is opposed by the respondents. The learned Central Government Standing Counsel contended that by virtue of the provisions contained in Section 6 of the Genera....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....egal action taken against anybody under the repeated Act will not be affected, unless a different intention appears from the repealed enactment. In the instant case the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Statement of Objects and Reasons given in the Gold (Control) Repeal Bill, 1990 will show that the intention of the Legislature is that no prosecution or other proceedings be continued under the repealed Act. In the Statement of Objects and Reasons it is mentioned that over the past 22 years the results achieved under the Act have not been encouraging and the desired objectives for which the Act was introduced have not been achieved due to various socio-economic and cultural factors in the vast multitude of the country's p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ars. In the case of a simple repeal there is scarcely any room for expression of a contrary opinion. But when the repeal is followed by fresh legislation on the same subject the Court would undoubtedly have to look to the provisions of the new Act but only for the purpose of determining whether they indicate a different intention. The line of enquiry would be, not whether, the new Act expressly keeps alive old rights and liabilities, but whether it manifests an intention to destroy them. The Court cannot therefore subscribe to the broad proposition that S. 6 of the General Clauses Act is ruled out when there is repeal of an enactment followed by a fresh legislation. Section 6 would be applicable in such cases also unless the new legislation....