9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (5) TMI 403X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioners by C.B.I. on 26.5.84 and 7.8.84 under Section 5(2) read with Section 5 (1)(e) and Section 5 (2) read with Section 5 (1)(d) of the prevention of Corruption Act 1947. On 7.1.87 the State of Sikkim issued a Notification withdrawing the consent given under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 to the C.B.I. for exercising powers and jurisdiction the State of Sikkim for investigations of offenses punishable under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code specified therein as well as offenses under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The said Notification was challenged in a writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. This Court by its judgment dated March 29, 1994 allowed the writ petition and declared that the Notification dated 7.1.87 withdrawing the consent given by the Government of Sikkim earlier operated only prospectively and the said withdrawal would not apply to cases which were pending investigation on the date of issuance of the said Notification. The Court observed that the Notification dated 7.1.87 did not preclude the C.B.I from submitting the report in the competent court under Section 173 Cr.P.C. on the basis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ail bonds. 5. That other of the Special Judge was challenged before the high Court in Criminal Revision Nos. 1,3 and 4 of 1997 by the State and the C.B.I. The learned Chief Justice of the High Court on 24.9.1997 allowed the revision petitions and held that the Special Judge appointed under Section 3 of the act of 1988 had jurisdiction entertain the charge sheet filed under the provisions of the Act of 1988 with regard to the offenses committed under the Act of 1947 and directed the special Judge to dispose of the criminal case pending on his file in accordance with law. It is that order of the High Court which is challenged in these S.L.Ps. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner in S.L.Ps 146-148 of 1998 has contended as follows:- Before the passing of the Act 1988 there were two enactments which dealt with the offenses in question, namely, the Act of 1947 and the Act of 1952. The Act of 1952 provided for constitution of Special Courts to try the offenses under the Act of 1947 and excluded the jurisdiction of other Courts. The Act of 1952 was not extended to the State of Sikkim. No special Court was constituted in the State of Sikkim to try the offenses under the Act of 1947. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Act of 1947 and not under the Act of 1988 and therefore the special court has no jurisdiction. 8. Per contra, learned Additional Solicitor General has contended that Section 3 of the Act of 1988 has to be read along with Section 30(2) of the said Act and that it will be clear therefrom that the Special Court is competent to try the offenses under the Act of 1947 as well as the Act of 1988. According to him a legal fiction is created by Section 30(2) by which the Act of 1988 is deemed to have been in force at the time when the offenses were committed and the investigation done. Reliance is placed by him on the judgment of this Court in B.N. Kohli and others Versus State of Uttar Pradesh and others 1966 (2) S.C.R. 158. Our attention is also drawn to the judgment of this Court in C.B.I versus Subodh Kumar Dutta and another (1997) 10 S.C.C. 567 and it is contended that the matter is concluded by the judgment in that case. 9. The contentions urged on behalf of the petitioners are based on a wrong understanding of provisions of the Act of 1988. No doubt, section 3 of the said Act refers only to offenses punishable under the Act and the Special Courts constituted under Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d as follows: The repeal by this Act of the Administration of Evacuee property Ordinance, 1949 or the Hyderabad Administration of Evacuee property, Regulation or of any corresponding law shall not affect the previous operation of that Ordinance, Regulation or Corresponding law, and subject thereto, anything done or any action taken in the exercise of any power conferred by or under that ordinance, Regulation or corresponding law, shall be deemed to have been done or taken in the exercise of the powers conferred by or under this Act as if this act were in force on the day on which such thing was done or action was taken. 11. While construing the said sub-section, the Court observed as follows: By the first part of S.58(3) repeal of the statutes mentioned therein did not operate to vacate things done or action taken under those statutes. This provision appears to have been enacted with a view to avoid the possible application of the rule of interpretation that where statute expires or is repealed, in the absence of a provision to the contrary, it is regarded as having never existed except as to matters and transactions past and closed: (see Surtees versus Ellison (1829) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R. 1117 at P.1133, the saving of the previous operation of the repealed statute. But as pointed out by this Court in Indira Sohanlal's case (1955) 2 S.C.R. 1117 at P. 1113, the saving of the previous operation of the repealed law is not to be read as saving the future operation of the previous law. The previous law stands repealed, and it has not for the future the partial operation as it is prescribed by Section 6 of General Clauses Act. All things done and actions taken under the repealed statute are deemed to be done or taken in exercise of powers conferred by or under the repealing Act, as if that Act were in force on the day on which that thing was done or action was taken. it was clearly the intention of the parliament that matters and transactions past and closed were not to be deemed vacated by the repeal of the statute under which they were done. The previous operation of the statute repealed was also affirmed expressly but things done or actions taken under the repealed statute are to be deemed by fiction to have been donor taken under the repealing Act. 12. On the basis of the above reasoning the Court held that the Custodian- General had jurisdiction to entertai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 shall be deemed to have been taken under or in pursuance of the corresponding provision of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. In view of this specific provision, cognizance of the offense taken by the Special Court stood saved. It appears that the attention of the learned Single Judge of the High Court was not invited to Section 30 (supra) or had it been so invited, we have no doubt that the proceedings which were saved by the 1988 Act would not have been quashed. The learned Single Judge has only deferred to Section 26 of the 1988 Act and we agree that under that Section, the cognizance taken by the Special Court was not saved. Section 26 of the 1988 Act has no application to this case. The order of the High Court in view of the clear provisions of Section 30 (supra) cannot be sustained and we, therefore, accept this appeal and set aside the order of the High Court impugned before us. Since the High Court did not express any opinion on the other points raised in the revision petition, we deem it appropriate to remand the matter to the High Court for deciding the Criminal revision petition, filed by Respondent No.1, afresh on merits after ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
