1998 (5) TMI 403 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Competence of the Special Judge (P.C. Act) Sikkim to try cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and 1988.
2. Applicability of Section 30(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
3. Interpretation of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act in the context of the repealing Act.

Summary:

Competence of the Special Judge (P.C. Act) Sikkim:
The primary issue in these petitions was whether the Special Judge (P.C. Act) Sikkim had the jurisdiction to try cases registered against the petitioners u/s 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, corresponding to Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petitioners argued that no special court was constituted in Sikkim under the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1952, and thus, the Special Judge appointed under Section 3 of the Act of 1988 could not try offenses under the Act of 1947.

Applicability of Section 30(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988:
The court examined Section 30(2) of the Act of 1988, which states: "Notwithstanding such repeal, but without prejudice to the application of section 6 of the General Clauses Act 1897 (10 of 1897), anything done or any action taken or purported to have been done or taken under or in pursuance of the Acts so repealed shall, in so far as it is not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, be deemed to have been done or taken under or in pursuance of the Corresponding provision of this Act." The court held that this provision creates a legal fiction whereby actions taken under the Act of 1947 are deemed to have been taken under the Act of 1988.

Interpretation of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act:
The court noted that Section 6 of the General Clauses Act would normally allow the continuation of proceedings as if the repealing Act had not been passed. However, the court emphasized that Section 30(2) of the Act of 1988 expresses a different intention, ensuring that actions taken under the Act of 1947 are deemed to have been taken under the Act of 1988. The court referred to the Constitution Bench decision in B.N. Kohli's case, which elucidated that actions taken under a repealed statute are deemed to be taken under the repealing statute.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the Special Judge (P.C. Act) Sikkim is competent to try the offenses for which the appellants stand charged. The court dismissed the appeals, affirming the jurisdiction of the Special Judge appointed under Section 3 of the Act of 1988 to try offenses under the Act of 1947. The court also referenced its previous judgment in C.B.I. Versus Subodh Kumar Dutta, which supported this interpretation.