STATE OF PUNJAB v. HARNEK SINGH

Citation: [2002] 1 S.C.R. 1060

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: R.P. SETHI, B.P. SINGH

Judgment text

STATE OF PUNJAB v. .. HARNEK SINGH FEBRUARY 15, 2002 [R. P. SETHI AND BISHESHWAR PRASAD SINGH, JJ. ) General Clauses Act, 1897: Object of-Held ls to shorten the language of Central Acts and to guard against slips and oversights by importing into every Act certain common form clauses-The General Clauses Act is a part ofevery Central Act and has to be read in such Act unless specifically excluded Section 6(b)-Object of-Held ls to save what has been previously done under the statute repealed-The result is that the pre-existing law continues to govern the things done before a particular date from which the repeal ofsuch a pre-existing law takes effect. Section 24-0bject of-Held, ls to preserve the continuity of the notifications. order, schemes, rules or by-laws made or issued under the repealed Act unless they are shown to he inconsistent with the provisions of the re-enacted statute.

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: Section 30(2)-Scope and ambit of-Held, In addition to Section 6 of the General Clauses Act the other provisions ofthe said. let are also equally applicable for the purposes of deciding the controversy with respect to the notification issued under the PC Act, 1947-Hence, notifications issued under PC Act, 1947, though not expressly saved hy S. 30 of 19/'l/'I Act, would still ensure or survive to govern any investigation dont! , or legal proceedings initiated under the 1988 Act. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (since repealed): Section 5-A (/)-Notifications issued under--Empowering and authorising inspectors ofPolice to conduct investigation--Va/idity of-Held, are saved and valid under S. 30 ofthe PC Act, 1988-Such notifications are STATE OF PUNJAB v.

HARNEK SINGH 1061 not inconsistent with the 1988 Act and are deemed to have been issued under the 1988 Act till specifically superseded or withdrawn or modified under the 1988 Act- -Hence, the investigation conducted by Inspectors ofPolice under the 1947 Act is proper, legal and valid. Words and Phrases: "Anything duly done or suffered hereunder"-Meaning of-In the context ofS. 6(b) of the General Clauses Act, 1897. The respondent-accused was apprehended while accepting bribe by laying trap under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, investigations were conducted by the Inspectors of Police who had been authorised to investigate the offences by notifications issued under Section 5-A(l) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, FIRs against the respondent were registered based on these investigation reports after the coming into force of the 1988 Act.

High Court quashed the FIRs and the subsequent proceedings pending against the respondent on the grounds that the investigation had not been conducted by the officers authorised under Section 17(1) of the 1988 Act, that Section 30 of the 1988 Act only made Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 applicable and not Section 24 of the General Clauses Act and, therefore, the notifications issued under Section 5-A(l) of the repealed 1947 Act would not ensure or survive. Hence this appeal. The following questions of law arose before the Court: (1) Whether the notifications issued by the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred upon it under Section 5-A(l) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (since repealed) empowering and authorising Inspectors of Police to investigate the cases registered under the said Act are not saved under the saving provisions of the re-enacted Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?

(2) Whether the aforesaid notifications not being inconsistent with the provisions of the re-enacted Act continue to be in force and be deemed to have been issued under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 till aforesaid notifications are superseded or specifically withdrawn? Allowing the appea~ the Court HELD : 1. The General Clau,es Act, 1897 has been enacted to avoid superfluity and repetition of language in various enactments. The object of this Act is to shorten the language ofCentral Acts, to provide as far as possible, for uniformity of expression in Central Acts, by giving definition of a series of terms in common use, to state explicitly certain convenient rules for the construction and interpretation of Central Acts, and to guard against slips and oversights by importing into every Act certain common fo, m clauses, which otherwise ought to be inserted expressly in every Central Act.

In other words the General Clauses Act is a part of every Central Act and has to be read in such Act unless specifically excluded Even in cases where the provisions of the Act do not apply, courts in the country have applied its principles keeping in mind the inconvenience that is likely to arise otherwise, particularly when the provision made in the Act are based upon the principles of equity, justice and good conscience. (1072-D-F) 2. 1. The words "anything duly done or suffered thereunder" used in Section 6(b) of the General Clauses Act are often used by the Legislature in saving clause, which is intended to provide that unless a different intention appears, the repeal of an Act would not affect anything duly done or suffered thereunder. (1072-GI 2. 2. The object of such a saving clause is to save what ha• been previously done under the statute repealed.

The result of such a saving clause is that the pre-existing law continues to govern the things done before a particular date from which the repeal of such a pre-existing law takes into effect. 11072-HI Hasan Nurani Malak v. Assistant ('harity Commissinner, AIR (1967) SC. 1742, relied on. 2. 3. The expression "things done" is comprehensive enough to take in not only the things done but also the effect of the legal consequence flowing therefrom. (I073-B] Universal Imports Agency v. ChiefController ofImports and&ports, (19611 I SCR 305, relied on. 3. The object of Section 24 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 is to prC">erve the continuity of the notifications, orders schemes, rules or by-laws made or issued under the repealed Act unless they are shown to be inconsistent with the provisions of the re-enacted statute. (1073-C) STATE OF PUNJAB v. HARNloK SINGH 1063 Neel'. '£! ) Niranjan Majumdar v. State ofWest Bengal, Affi (1972) SC 2066; CBJ v.

Subodh Kumar Dutta, (1997) 10 SCC 567; Nar Bhandari v. State ofSikkim, [1998] 5 SCC 39; Kolhapur Cane Sugar Works ltd v. Union ofIndia, (2002) 2 SCC 356 and Chief Inspector ofMines v. Karam Chand Thapar, AIR (1961) SC 838, relied on. 4. 1. It is not possible to accept the contention of the respondent that as reference made in Section 30(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is only to Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, the other provisions of the said Act are not applicable for the purposes of deciding the controversy with respect to the notifications issued under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The High Court committed a mistake of law by holding that as the • notifications have not expressly been saved by Section 30 of the 1988 Act, those would not enure or survive to govern any investigation done or legal proceeding instituted in respect of the cases registered under the 1988 Act. (1076-F-G) 4. 2.

The 1988 Act is both repealing and re-enacting the law relating to prevention of corruption to which the provisions of Section 24 of the General Clauses Act are specifically applicable. As Section 6 of the General Clauses Act applies to repealed enactments, the Legislature in its wisdom thought it proper to make the same specifically applicable in the 1988 Act also which is a repealed and re-enacted statute. Reference to Section 6 of the General Clauses Act in Section 30(1) of the 1988 Act has been made to avoid any confusion or misunderstanding regarding the effect of repeal with regard to action~ taken under the repealed Act. ff the Legislature had intended not to apply the provisions of Section 24 ofthe General Clauses Act to the 1988 Act, it would have specifically so provided under the enacted law.

In the light of the fact that Section 24 ofthe General clauses Act is specifically applicable to repealing and re-enacting statute, its exclusion has to be specific and cannot be inferred by twisting the language of the enactments. Accepting the contention of the respondent would render the provisions of the 1988 Act redundant inasmuch as appointments, notifications, orders, schemes, rules, by-laws, made or issued under the repealed Act would be deemed to be nonexistent making impossible the working of the re-enacted law. (1077-A-C) 5. The provisions of the 1947 and 1988 enactments are not inconsistent • and Section 30(2) of the 1988 Act would save the notifications issued under the 1947 Act.

The consistency, referred to in Section 30(2) of the 1988 Act is with respect to acts done in pursuance of the Repealed Act and thus restricted it to such provisions of the Acts which come for interpretation of the court and not the whole of the scheme of the enactment There is no inconsistency between Section 5-A of the I 947 Act and Section I 7 of the 1988 Act and provisions of the General Clauses Act would be applicable and with the aid ofSection 30(2) anything done or any action taken or purported to have been done or taken in pursuance of the 1947 Act be deemed to have been done or taken under or in pursuance of the corresponding provision of the 1988 Act For that purpose, the 1988 Act, by fiction, shall be deemed to have been in force at the time when the notifications were issued under the then prevalent corresponding law. (1077-E-F) 6.

The notifications issued by the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 5-A of the 1947 Act, empowering and authorising the Inspectors of Police posted in Special inquiry Agency of the Vigilance Department to investigate the cases registered under the said Act were saved under the saving provision of the re-enacted 1988 Act. Such notifications are not inconsistent with the provisions ofthe re-enacted Act and are deemed to continue iu force as having been issued under the re-enacted 1988 Act till the aforesaid notificaJions are specifically superseded or withdrawn or modified under the 1988 Act. The investigation conducted by the Inspectors of Police authorised in that behalf under the 1947 Act is proper, legal and valid investigation under the re-enacted 1988 Act and does not suffer from any vice of illegality or jurisdiction. [1078-F-GI CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 801 ofl999. From the Judgment and Order dated 25. 9.

1998 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Crl. M. No. 5860-M of 1991. WITH Crl. A. Nos. 802-808, 809-810/99 and 374/2001. lnderbir Singh Alag and Rajeev Sharma for the Appellant. Ranjit Kumar, Manoj Swarup, Hiren Dasan, Avinish Gautam, Ajaya Kumar, Manish Khandelwal, Ms. Binu Tamta, Verun Goswami, Anant Vijay Palli, Ms. Rekha Palli, Atul Sharma, Ms. Shubhra Singh, Jasbir S. Malik and S. K. Sabharwal for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SETHI, J. In all these appeals, the F! Rs and subsequent proceedings pending against the respondents under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1988 Act") were quashed ,.. ~ by the High Court in exercise of the powers testing in it under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The accused-respondents had been -- apprehended while accepting the bribe by laying the trap under the 1988 Act.

The High Court found that as the investigations had not been conducted by the authorised officers under the 1988 Act, the same were vitiated and deserved to be quashed. The questions of law to be adjudicated upon in these appeals are: (I) Whether the notifications issued by the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred upon it under Section 5A(l) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (since repealed) empowering and authorising Inspector of Police to investigate the cases registered under the said Act are not saved under the saving provisions of the reenacted Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. (2) Whether the aforesaid notifications not being inconsistent with the provisions of the re-enacted Act continue to be in force and be deemed to have been issued under the Prevention of Corruption Act, ' 1988 till aforesaid notifications are superseded or specifically withdrawn. " Most of the facts in these appeals are not disputed.

It is agreed that during the subsistence of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1947 Act"), the Government of Punjab issued a notification on 9. 7. 1968 authorising Inspectors of Pol ice, for the time being serving in the State Vigilance Department or who may be posted in future to serve with the said agency to investigate the offences under the 1947 Act within the State of Punjab so long as they remain posted in the said agency. In suppression of the notifications dated 9th July, 1968, the Government of Punjab issued another notification on 12. 8. 1968 under Section 5A(I) of the 1947 Act authorising such inspectors of police to investigate the offences under the Act even beyond the State of Punjab and the restrictions of investigation within the State of Punjab were removed. The 1947 Act was repealed on 9. 9. 1988 by re-enacting the 1988 Act being Act No. 49 of 1988.

FIRs against the t respondents were, concededly, registered after the coming into force the 1988 Act and the investigation conducted by the Inspectors of Police who had been authorised to investigate the offences by notifications issued under the repealed Act of 1947. The accused-respondents filed petitions under Section 1066 SUPRE\1E COUR f REPORTS [2002) t S. C. R. 482 of the Cr. P. C. (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") for quashing the FIRs registered and the proceedings pending against them on the ground that the inspectors who had investigated the cases were not the authorised officers in terms of Section 17 of 1988 Act. In reply to the notices issued by the High Court, the State fj(ed counter affidavit submitting therein that the investigating officers were auth0rised to investigate the case as provided by first proviso to Sub-section (I) of Section 5A of the 1947 Act.

It was contended that in view of the provisions of Section 30(2) of the 1988 Act read with Sections 6 and 24 of the General Clauses Act, the notifications issued by the State of Punjab under the 1947 Act were still in force which empowered the Inspectors of the Police of the Vigilance Department to investigate the cases under the 1947 Act. The learned Judge, who disposed of the petitions for quashing the F! Rs and the subsequent proceedings vide the judgment impugned in these appeals, first dealt with the problem of prevalent corruption in society and described it as cancer eating the bone marrow of the society. He, however, found that the repeal of an Act amounted to its revocation, annulment and abrogation, the effect of which was that the repealed Act or Ordinance did not exist on the st Act is that the said notification of 1923 issued under Section 15 of the Act of 1878 not only continued to operate but has to be deemed to have been enacted under the new Act.

" In Central Bureau of Investigation v. Suhodh Kumar Dutta and Anr. , [ 1997] 10 SCC 567 the cognizance of the offrnce had been taken by Special Court constituted under the West Bengal Special Courts Acc. Alter cognizance had been taken, the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 came to be repealed by the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 w. e. f. 9. 9. 1988. The accused filed a Criminal Revision Petition in the High Court seeking quashing of the proceedings in the case pending against him before the Special Court in which the principal ground raised was the violation of fundamental right of the accused to speedy trial. During the arguments the accused was permitted to raise a plea that the Special Court, trying the bribery case, had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 as that court had not been constituted pursuant to Section 3 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 which had repealed the 1947 Act.

Taking note of Section 26 of the 1988 Act, the Single Judge of the High Court opined that the cognizance taken by the Special Court on 9. 7. 1988 under the 1947 Act was not saved and thus quashed the proceedings. Interpreting subsection (2) of Section 30 of the 1988 Act, this Court held that a bare look at the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 30 shows that anything done or any action taken or purported to have been taken under or in pursuance of 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, the cognizance of the offence taken by the Special Court stood saved. In Nar Bahadur Bhandari and Anr. v. State a/Sikkim and Ors..

(1998] 5 SCC 39 it was held that sub-section (2) of Section 30 of the 1988 Act, on the one hand ensures that the application of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act is not prejudiced, on the other it expressed a different intention as contemplated by the said section. The last part of sub-section introduced a legal fiction whereby anything done or action taken under or in pursuance of 1947 Act shall be deemed to have been done or taken under or in pursuance of the corresponding provision of the 1988 Act. The fiction is to the effect that the 1988 Act had come into force when such thing was done or action was taken. In Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. , (2000] 2 SCC 356 this Court held that at common law the normal act of repealing the statute or deleting the provision is to obliterate it from the statute book as completely as if it had never been passed, and the statute must be considered as a law that never existed.

To this rule an exception is engrafted by the provisions of Section 6( I). If a provision of a statute is unconditionally omitted without a saving Clause in favour of pending proceedings, all actions must stop where the omission finds them, and if final relief has not been granted before the omission goes into, it cannot be granted afterwards. Savings 1076 SUPREME COLIRT REPORTS [2002] I S. C. R. of the nature contained in ~ection 6 in Special Act may modify the position. · There is no dispute that when an Act is repealed but re-enacted, it is almost inevitable that there will be some time lag between the re-enacted statute coming into force and regulations being framed under the re-enacted . statute. In Chief Inspector ofMines and Anr. , etc. v. Karam Chand Thapar, etc.

, AIR (1961) SC 838 this Court observed that: "However, efficient the rule-making authority may be it is impossible to avoid some hiatus between the coming into force of the re-enacted statute and the simultaneous repeal of the old Act and the making of regulations. Often, the time lag would be considerable. It is conceivable that any legislature, in providing that regulations made under its statute will have effect as if enacted in the Act, could have intended by those words to say that if ever the Act is repealed and re-enacted, (as is more than likely to happen sooner f1r later), the regulations will have no existence for the purpose of the re-enacted statute, and thus the reenacted statute, for some time at lt>ast, will be in many respects, a dead letter. The answer must be in the negative. Whatever the purpose be which induced the draftsmen to adopt this legislative form as regards the rules and regulations that they will have effe.

:t "as if enacted in the Act", it will be strange indeed if the result of the language used, be that by becoming part of the Act. they would stand repealed, when the Act is repealed. One can be certain that that could not have been the intention of the legislature. It is satisfactory that the words used do not produce that result. ·· We do not find any force in the submiss. on of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that as reference made in Sub-section (2) of Section 30 of 1988 Act is only to Section 6 of General Clauses Act, the other provisions of the said Act are not applic:ible for the purposes of deciding the controversy with respect to the notifications issued under the 1947 Act.

We are further of the opinion that the High Court committed a mistake of law by holding that as notifications have not expressly been saved by Section 30 of the Act, those would not enure or survive to govern any investigation done or legal proceeding instituted in respect of the cases registered under the 1988 Act. There is no dispute that 1988 Act is both repealing and re-enacting the law relating to prevention of corruption to which the provisions of Section 24 of the General Clauses Act are specifically applicable. It appears that as Section 6 of the General Clauses Act applies to repealed enactments, the S l'A le OF PUNJAB v. HARNEK SINGH [SETHI, J. ] I077 Legislature in its wisdom thought it proper to make the same specifically applicable in 1988 Act also which is a repealed and re-enacted statute. Reference to Section 6 of General Clauses Act in sub-section(!

) of Section 30 has been made to avoid any confusion or misunderstanding regarding the effect of repeal with regard to actions taken under the repealed Act. If the Legislature had intended not to apply the provisions of Section 24 of the General Clauses Act to the 1988 Act, it would have specifically so provided under the enacted law. In the light of the fact that Section 24 of the General Clauses Act is specifically applicable to repealing and re-enacting statute, its exclusion has to be specific and cannot be inferred by twisting the language of the enactments. Accepting the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents would render the provisions of 1988 Act redundant inasmuch as ' appointments, notifications, orders, schemes, rules, by-laws, made or issued under the repealed Act would be deemed to be non-existent making impossible the working of the re-enacted law impossible.

The provisions of the 1988 Act are required to be understood and interpreted in the light of the provisions of the General Clauses Act including Sections 6 and 24 thereof. There is no substance in the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that the provision made in two enactments were inconsistent and sub-se.. :tion (2) of Section 30 would not save the notifications issued under the 1947 Act. The consistency, referred to in sub-section (2) of Section 30 is with respect to acts done in pursuance of the Repealed Act and thus restricted it to such provision ofthe Acts which come for interpretation of the court and not the whole of the scheme of the enactment.

It has been conceded before us that there is no inconsistency between Section 5A of the 1947 Act and Section 17 of the 1988 Act and provisions of General Clauses Act would be applicable and with the aid of sub-section (2) of Section 30 anything done or any action taken or purported to have been done or taken in pursuance of 1947 Act be deemed to have been done or taken under or in pursuance of the corresponding provision of 1988 Act. For that purpose, the 1988 Act, by fiction, shall be deemed to have been in force at the time when the aforesaid notifications were issued under the then prevalent corresponding law. Otherwise also there does not appear any inconsistency between the two enactments except that the scope and field covered by 1988 Act has been widened and enlarged. Both the enactments deal with the same subject matter, i. e. corruption amongst the public servants and make provision to deal with such a menace.

To justify the impugned judgment and to impress upon us the inconsistency in the two provisions, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents referred to some communications included in the paperbook from pages I09 to I? O. It is submitted that the aforesaid correspondence in the form of Annexure P-2 to P-5 showed that the Government had applied its mind under the re-enacted law and took a conscious decision that the Inspectors of Police were not competent to investigate the offences punishable under the new Act and that only officers above the rank of Dy. Superintendent of Police should investigate the cases under the Act. Reference to tne aforesaid letters is based upon misconception. In none of the letters the Government is shown to have taken any decision as argued. The aforesaid documents are the letters exchanged between different officials of the Police Department of the State of Punjab which are not referable to any specific decision of the State Government.

In the Memo of Appeal and the Rejoinder Affidavit filed on behalf ofthe State it is specifically submitted that the proceedings of the high level meeting presided over by the Chief Secretary, referr.. :d to by the respondents as decision of the Government, "is internal communication between different wings of the Government and cannot be made basis to conclude that State Government had neither any intention to keep alive the notifications under the Old Act of 1947 nor have any intention to empower the Inspector of Police in the Vigilance Department to investigate the afresh cases. It is also relevant that as per the Old Act, since there were notifications which were valid under the New Act by virtue of Section 6 and 24 of General Clauses Act unless these were formally rescinded, the same hold good and the notings on the file co any effect cannot be made basis for striking down those notifications".

It is, therefore, evident that the notifications issued by the Government of Punjab, in exercise of the powers conferred unJer Section SA of the 1947 Act, empowering and authorising the Inspectors of Police posted in Special Inquiry Agency of the Vigilance Department, Govt. of Punjab to investigate the cases registered under the said Act were saved under the saving provision of the re-enacted 1988 Act. Such notifications are not inconsistent with the ' provisions of re-enacted Act and are deemed to continue in force as having been issued under the re-enacted 1988 Act till the aforesaid notifications are specifically superseded or withdrawn or modified under the 1988 Act. The investigation conducted by the Inspectors of Police authorised in that behalf under the 1947 Act are held to be proper, legal and valid investigation under the re-enacted Act and do not suffer from any vice of illegality or jurisdiction.

The High Court committed a mistake of law in holding the aforesaid notifications as not saved under the re-enacted 1988 Act. The quashing of the proceedings on the basis of the First Information Report registered against the respondent-accused was illegal and contrary to the settled position of law. The judgment of the High Court, impugned in these appeals, is, therefore, liable to be set aside. - Under the circumstances, the appeals are allowed and the impugned judgments are set aside. The Trial Courts are directed to proceed with the matter in accordance with law and after framing the charges decide cases on their merits. In view of the fact that the proceedings have been unnecessarily • delayed and protracted by the respondents for a sufficiently long period, the trial courts are impressed upon to give priority to the aforesaid cases and conclude the trials at the earliest. V. S. S. Appeals allowed.