LexJETHANAND BETAB versus THE STATE OF DELHI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
- S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 755 In this appeal this Court can do what the High r959 Court could have done. We accordtngly allow the Abdul Rehman appeal and set aside the order of ac<Juittal made by the Mahomed Yusuf Presidency Magistrate but, on the finding of the Pre- v. sidency lifagistrate that no offence of conspiracy or Mahnmfd Haji abetment arisi11g therefrom had be~n established, we Ahmad Agbotwala direct that the present complaint be dismissed. The respondent is accordingly discharged. Appeal allowed. JETHANAND BETAB v. THE STATE OF DELHI (now Delhi AdminiHtration) (SYED J AFER IMAM and K. RuBBA RAO, JJ.) Repeal of Statitte-Repealing a11d Amending Act, o/i_ject of- Enactment making possession of wireless telegraphy apparatus without licence pmiisha!Jle-Amending Act introd11cinr; new section ma/ling possession of wireless transmitter 111ith1mt licence liable to heavier /mnishmcnt-Repeal of Amendi1~ Act-Whether amendment introduced by it sun•ives--1ndian !fireless Telegraphy Act, r933 (XV II of.r933), ss. 3, 6 and 6(rA)-Indian Wireless Telegraphy (Amendment) Act, r949 (XXXI of r949), s. 5-Repealing and Amending Act, r952 (XLV III of r952). ss. 2 and 4-·-General Clauses Act, r879 (X of r879), s. (iA. Section 3 of the Indian Wireiess Telegraphy Act, 1933 provided that no person shall possess wireless telegraphy apparatus without a licence and s. G made such possession punishable. The Indian Wireless Teleg-raphy (Amendment) Act, 1949, introduced s. h(1A) in the 1933 Act, which provider! for a heavier sentence for possession of ;, wireless transmitter without a licence. The Repealing and Amending Act, 1952, repealed the whole of the Amendment Act of 1949, hut by s. 4 provided that the repeal shall not affect any other enactment in which the repealed enactment had been applied, incorporated or referred to. The appellant was convicted under s. 6(1A) for being in possession of a wireless transmitter on July 31, 1953· He contended that s. 6(rA) had been repealed and his conviction and sentence there- under could not be sustained. Held, thats. 6(1A) was saved bys. 6A of the General Clauses Act, 1897, though s. 4 of the Repealing and Amending Act, 1952, did not save it. Imam J. r959 September 15. 756 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960(1)] '959 The object of the Re;>ealing and Amending Act, 1952, was to strike ont unnecessary Acts and to excise dead matter from .felhanand Betab the statute book. v.f D lh' Khuda Bux v. Manager, Caledonian Press, A.I.R. 1954 Cal. The State o e ' 484, referred to. Section 4 of the Repealing and Amending Act, 1952, only saved other enactments in which the repealed enactment had been applied, incorporated or referred to. It had no application to the case of a later amending Act inserting a new provision in an earlier Act as it could not be said that the earlier Act applied, incorporated or referred to the Amending Act. Secretary of State for India in Council v. Hindusthan Co-operative Insurance Society, Ltd, L.R. 58 I.A. 259, followed. Mohinder Singh v. Mst. Harbhajan Kaur, I.L.R_ rq55 Punj. 625 and Darbara Singh v. Shrimati Karnail Kaur, 61 P.L.R. 762, disapproved. Section 6A of the General Clauses Act provided that when any Central Act repealed any enactment by which the text of any Central Act was amended then unless a different intention appeared the repeal would not affect such amendment. The word "text " in s. 6A was comprehensive enough to include the subject as well as the terminology used in a statute, and the insertion of s. 6(1A} in the 1933 Act was an amendment in the text. No different intention appeared either from the repealing Act or from the history of the legislation ands. 6A applied to the repeal of the Amendment Act, 1949· CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Qriminal Appeal No. 185of1957. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 6th December, 1955, of the Punjab High Court (Circuit Bench) at Delhi, in Criminal. Revision No. 122-D of 1955, arising out of the judgment and order dated July 29, 1955, of the First Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, in Cr. A. No. 367/55. Mohan Behari Lat and Eluri Udayarathnam, for the appellant. N. S. Bindra and R. li.. Dhebar, for the respondent. "" 1959. September 15. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SubbaRaoJ. SuBBA RAO J.-This appeal by special leave is directed against the order of the High Court of Punjab (Circuit Benc
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.