State of Punjab v. Mohar Singh

Supreme Court of India, 20 October 1954, 3 judges, 1955 AIR 84, 1955 SCR (1) 893

Section 6 of the General Clauses Act applies where a law is repealed and simultaneously re-enacted, unless the new law shows an intention to destroy accrued liabilities; it does not apply when a temporary law expires by efflux of time.

Facts

On 17 March 1948 the respondent filed a land claim as a refugee under the East Punjab Refugees (Registration of Land Claims) Ordinance VII of 1948, a temporary law. On 1 April 1948 the Ordinance was repealed and Act XII of 1948 re-enacted all its provisions. The claim was found to be wholly false, and in 1950 he was prosecuted under Section 7 of the Act, which punished false information in a claim. He confessed and was convicted by the Magistrate. On a reference for enhancement of sentence, a Division Bench of the Punjab High Court set aside the conviction, holding that Section 6 of the General Clauses Act applied only to a simple repeal and not to a repeal followed by re-enactment. The State appealed on a certificate.

Questions before the Court

Does Section 6 of the General Clauses Act apply where a repeal is followed by simultaneous re-enactment of the repealed law?
Could the respondent be prosecuted after the repeal of the temporary Ordinance for an offence committed while it was in force?

What the Court held

Section 6 of the General Clauses Act applies to Ordinances through Section 30. It applies when a statute is actually repealed, not when a temporary statute expires by efflux of time. Here the temporary Ordinance was repealed before its period expired, so the repeal attracted Section 6.
Section 6 is not excluded merely because the repeal is followed by fresh legislation. The new Act must be examined only to see whether it shows a different intention; the question is not whether it expressly keeps old rights and liabilities alive but whether it manifests an intention to destroy them.
The mere absence of a saving clause is not material. 'Anything done' in Section 11 of the Act means official acts under the Ordinance, not a person's offences, but Sections 4, 7 and 8 of the Act showed no intention to extinguish liabilities for claims filed under the Ordinance.
The appeal was allowed, the High Court's judgment set aside and the Magistrate's sentence restored.

Why it matters

The judgment settles that the consequences of repeal under Section 6 of the General Clauses Act follow even on repeal with simultaneous re-enactment, unless the new law shows a contrary intention, and states the test for that intention. It also distinguishes the expiry of a temporary statute by efflux of time, to which Section 6 does not apply, from the repeal of such a statute before it expires.

In the Court's words

Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.

“Of course, the consequences laid down in section 6 of the Act will apply only when a statute or regulation having the force of a statute is actually repealed. It has no application when a statute, which is of a temporary nature, automatically expires by efflux of time.”

B.K. Mukherjea, J.Page 5 of the judgment

“The line of enquiry would be, not whether the new Act expressly keeps alive old rights and liabilities but whether it manifests an intention to destroy them. We cannot therefore subscribe to the broad proposition that section 6 of the General Clauses Act is ruled out when there is repeal of an enactment followed by a fresh legislation. Section 6 would be applicable in such cases also unless the new legislation manifests an intention incompatible with or contrary to the provisions of the section.”

B.K. Mukherjea, J.Page 6 of the judgment

“The provisions of section 6 of the General Clauses Act will, in our opinion, apply to a case of repeal even if there is simultaneous enactment unless a contrary intention can be gathered from the new enactment.”

B.K. Mukherjea, J.Page 7 of the judgment

Provisions interpreted

Section 6, General Clauses Act, 1897
Section 30, General Clauses Act, 1897
Section 4, Punjab General Clauses Act, 1898
Sections 4, 7, 8 and 11, East Punjab Refugees (Registration of Land Claims) Act, 1948 (Act XII of 1948)

Case and bench

Parties: State of Punjab v. Mohar Singh
Case: Criminal Appeal No. 61 of 1953
Decided: 20 October 1954
Bench: Mukherjea, B.K., Bose, Vivian, Jagannadhadas, B.
Opinions: Unanimous. Judgment of the Court delivered by B.K. Mukherjea, J.

Questions on this case

3 questions in live Law Maker papers mention this case. Practise them with the landmark judgments questions.