1959 (9) TMI 62 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Repeal of Section 6(1-A) of the Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933.
2. Validity of conviction and sentence under the repealed section.
3. Application of Section 4 of the Repealing and Amending Act, 1952.
4. Application of Section 6-A of the General Clauses Act, 1897.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Repeal of Section 6(1-A) of the Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933:
The appellant was convicted under Section 6(1-A) of the Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933, which was inserted by the Indian Wireless Telegraphy (Amendment) Act, 1949. The appellant contended that Section 6(1-A) was repealed by the Repealing and Amending Act, 1952, and thus, the conviction and sentence under this section could not be sustained. The court noted that the 1949 Act was indeed repealed by the 1952 Act, but the latter Act saved the operation of other enactments in which the repealed enactment had been applied, incorporated, or referred to.

2. Validity of Conviction and Sentence Under the Repealed Section:
The appellant argued that if Section 6(1-A) was repealed, the conviction and sentence under this section would be invalid. The court observed that the High Court mistakenly cited Section 6(1) instead of Section 6(1-A). The court reasoned that even if Section 6(1-A) was not on the statute book, the conviction could still be sustained under Section 6(1), as the words "wireless telegraphy apparatus" in Section 6(1) are comprehensive enough to include "wireless telegraphy transmitter."

3. Application of Section 4 of the Repealing and Amending Act, 1952:
The court examined whether the amendments inserted by the 1949 Act in the 1933 Act were saved by Section 4 of the 1952 Act. The court referred to legal principles from Halsbury's Laws of England and other judicial precedents to conclude that the main object of the 1952 Act was to strike out unnecessary Acts and excise dead matter from the statute book. The court held that Section 4 of the 1952 Act did not apply to a case of a later amending Act inserting new provisions in an earlier Act.

4. Application of Section 6-A of the General Clauses Act, 1897:
The court found that the case fell within the purview of Section 6-A of the General Clauses Act, 1897, which states that the repeal of an amending Act does not affect the continuance of any amendment made by the enactment so repealed. The court rejected the argument that the insertion of Section 6(1-A) was not a textual amendment but a substantial one, clarifying that the word "text" is comprehensive enough to include both the subject and the terminology used in a statute.

The court also dismissed the argument that the intention of the legislature was to expurgate Section 6(1-A) as redundant and unnecessary. The court noted that the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, did not prohibit the possession of a wireless apparatus, and the 1949 amendment was introduced to address this gap. The court concluded that Section 6(1-A) continued to be in force even after the 1949 Act was repealed by the 1952 Act.

Conclusion:
The court held that Section 6(1-A) of the Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933, continued to be on the statute book even after the amending Act of 1949 was repealed by the Repealing and Amending Act, 1952. Therefore, the conviction and sentence of the appellant under this section were valid. The appeal was dismissed.