9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Delay in prosecution commencement. 2. Validity of prosecution under Defence of India Act. 3. Effect of repeal and expiry of statutes on prosecution. Detailed Analysis: 1. The appeal by the State of Uttar Pradesh challenged the High Court's judgment quashing proceedings against the respondents under Section 120-B, I. P. C. read with Defence of India Rules. The prosecution alleged that the respondents violated the Non-Ferrous Metals Control Order, 1942, during 1943-1945, but no action was taken until January 1950. The Supreme Court criticized the delay, stating that serious offenses should not go unpunished due to investigative delays. 2. The respondents sought to quash the proceedings citing the expiry of the Defence of India Act and the repeal of the Government of India Act, 1935. The Sessions Judge upheld the trial magistrate's decision, emphasizing the continued applicability of the Defence of India Rules. However, the High Court criticized the Sessions Judge for excessive praise of the trial Court's judgment without proper legal analysis. 3. The High Court ruled that the Defence of India Act expired in 1946, and subsequent ordinances did not extend liability for offenses committed after their repeal. The Court also considered the effect of the repeal of the Government of India Act in 1950 on the prosecution. The Supreme Court concurred with the High Court's decision, emphasizing that without a saving clause, prosecutions under expired statutes cannot continue, even with the General Clauses Act. 4. The Supreme Court highlighted the importance of saving clauses in statutes to allow prosecutions post-expiry. The Ordinance XII of 1946 provided such a clause for offenses under the Defence of India Act, enabling prosecutions even after the Act's expiry. However, subsequent repeals and constitutional changes rendered the prosecution unsustainable, leading to the dismissal of the appeal by the State of Uttar Pradesh.
|
