1982 (12) TMI 186 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether a contrary intention appears from the provisions of the Central Amendment Act so as to exclude the applicability of s.8 of the Bengal General Clauses Act? Held that - t is settled both on authority and principle that when a later statute again describes an offence created by an earlier statute and imposes a different punishment, or varies the procedure, the earlier statute is repealed by implication. The rule is however subject to the limitation contained in Art. 20(1) against ex post facto law providing for a greater punishment and has also no application where the offence described in the later Act is not the same as in the earlier Act i.e. when the essential ingredients of the two offences are different. In the premises, the Central Amendment Act having dealt with the same offence as the one punishable under s. 16(1)(a) and provided for a reduced punishment, the accused must have the benefit of the reduced punishment. We wish to make it clear that anything that we have said shall not be construed as giving to the Central Amendment Act a retrospective operation insofar as it creates new offences or provides for an enhanced punishment. Appeal dismissed.

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Central Amendment Act impliedly repealed the West Bengal Amendment Act with effect from April 1, 1976.
2. Whether the High Court was justified in holding that the West Bengal Amendment Act shall be deemed to have been obliterated from the Statute Book for all intents and purposes.
3. Whether the pending proceedings are to be governed by the change of procedure brought about by Section 16A of the Act as introduced by the Central Amendment Act, and whether the continued operation of the repealed West Bengal Amendment Act is preserved with regard to the punishment to be imposed.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Implied Repeal by the Central Amendment Act:
The court examined whether the Central Amendment Act, which came into force on April 1, 1976, impliedly repealed the West Bengal Amendment Act. The West Bengal Amendment Act had increased the punishment for food adulteration offenses to life imprisonment, making such offenses triable by the Court of Sessions. The Central Amendment Act, however, altered the punishment provisions and introduced Section 16A, providing for summary trials by a Judicial Magistrate of the first class or a Metropolitan Magistrate. The court concluded that the Central Amendment Act impliedly repealed the West Bengal Amendment Act due to the repugnancy between the two laws under Article 254(1) of the Constitution. The Central Act, being a later law made by Parliament "with respect to the same matter," prevailed over the State law.

2. High Court's Justification:
The High Court held that the West Bengal Amendment Act was obliterated from the Statute Book for all intents and purposes once the Central Amendment Act came into force. The court agreed with this view, stating that the Central Amendment Act manifested an intention to exclude the operation of Section 8 of the Bengal General Clauses Act, 1899. The court noted that when Parliament enacts a law on the same subject matter, the State law becomes void to the extent of its repugnancy. The court cited the case of Zaverbai Amaidas v. The State of Bombay to illustrate the application of Article 254(2), where a State law, although initially valid due to Presidential assent, was later impliedly repealed by a subsequent Central law.

3. Applicability of Section 16A and Preservation of Punishment:
The court addressed whether the pending proceedings should be governed by the new procedure under Section 16A of the Central Amendment Act and whether the punishment provisions of the repealed West Bengal Amendment Act were preserved. The court emphasized that the Central Amendment Act reduced the punishment for offenses under Section 16(1)(a) and provided for summary trials. The court rejected the argument that Section 16A was not retrospective and that the old procedure and punishment should apply. It held that the rule of beneficial construction required that even ex post facto laws that mitigate the rigour of the law should be applied. The court referred to the case of Rattan Lal v. The State of Punjab, where the benefit of a new law reducing punishment was extended to pending cases. The court concluded that the accused should have the benefit of the reduced punishment under the Central Amendment Act.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed, affirming the High Court's decision that the Central Amendment Act impliedly repealed the West Bengal Amendment Act and that the pending proceedings should be governed by the new procedure and reduced punishment provisions of the Central Amendment Act. The court clarified that the Central Amendment Act did not have retrospective operation insofar as it created new offenses or provided for enhanced punishment.

← Previous Next →