NAYYAR (G. P.) versus STATE (DELHI ADMN.)

Citation: [1979] 2 S.C.R. 816 · Decided: 14-12-1978 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.S. KAILASAM · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
816 
NAYYAR (G. P.) 
v. 
STATE (DELHI ADMN.) 
December 14, 1978 
(P. S. KAILASAM AND 0. CHINNAPPA REDDY, JJ.) 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947-Efject of the repeal of section 5(3) 
0/ the Act-JVhcther Act 16 of 1967 introducing SPction. 5(1) (e) and 
with 
retrospective effect offends Articles 14 and 20(1) of the Constitution. 
The appeilant \Vho was charged for the offence'.> (a) under section 120B 
C 
I.P.C. (b) 
under section 161 I.P.C. read with 
><etio~ 5(2) 
and 5(J)(d) 
of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 and (c) under section 5(2) read 
with section 5(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 was acquitted 
by the special judge holding that neither the charge of conspiracy nor any 
other charge against the accused was proved. 
But the special Judge held 
that the assets of the appellant from !st of July '55 to 30th April 1961 
had 
exceeded his income by Rs. 33,588.34 and they \Vere disproportionate to the 
D 
knol.vn sources of income of the petitioner. 
The tnai Judge, ho\vever, 
found 
that as section 5(3) of the Act had been repc!lled on 18-12-1964 and as spe-
cific in'llanccs of payinent of bribe to the petitioner could npt be proved the 
accused could not be held guilty of the charges. 
,\ggrkved by the decision, 
the State rreferred an appeal to the Delhi High Cotui on llth April, 
1967. 
Pending the appeal before the High Court, Act No. 16 of 1967, came into 
force on 5th May 1967 re-introducing section 5 ( 1) ( e) in the Act. In the High 
E 
Court the appellant challenged the vires of Act No. 16 of 1967 on the ground 
that revival of section 5 (3) of the Act and making it applicable retrospectively 
was void and unconstitutional as it was in violation of Art. 14 and 20(1) of 
the Constitution. 
A Division Bench of the High Court of Dl!lhi by its 
judgment dated 27th November, 1973 aIIowed the appeal upholding the validity 
of Act No" 
16 of 1967 and remanded the case to be tried from the stage at 
which it was pending on 18th December, 1964. 
F 
G 
H 
In E!ppenis by special leave it was contended that (a) Since section 5(3) 
of the P.0.1''.A., 1947 was repealed on 18-12-64 the Court below cannot take 
into account the provisions of section 5(3) of the Act after the date of its 
repeal on 18-12-64 and (b) Act No. 16 of 1964 which gave retrospective 
operation to section 5(3) or-the Act is violative of Articles 14 and 20(1) of the 
Constitution. 
HELD : 1. Whether Act 16 of 1967 had been brought into force on 20th 
June 1967 or not the rule of evidence as incorporated in section 5(3) of the 
P.0.F.A., 1947 would be available regarding offences that 
were 
committed 
<luring the period before the repeal of section 5(3). [823 G] 
2. Section 5(3) of the Prevention of Corruption 
1\ct, 1947 
provided an 
additional mode of proving an offence punishable under sub-sections 5(2) 
for 
\Vhich an accused person is being tried and, therefore, prescribes a rule of evi-
dence. 
Section 5(3) does not create a new kind of offence of criminal mis-
conduct by a public servant in the discharge of his official duty. [821 H, 822 A]. 
• 
• 
• 
.. 
• 
;. 
• 
• 
G. P. NAYYAR V. DELHI ADMN. 
817 
G.D. S. Swamy v. State, [1960] 1 SCR 461, Suraipa/ Singh v. 
A 
State of U.P., [1961] 2 SCR 971 and Sa;;an Singh v. State of Puniab 
[1964] 4 S.C.R. 630; applied. 
3. While repealing section 5(3) by Act 40 of 1964 the statute did not say 
that the section shall be deemed not to have been in force at all. 
Section 6 
of the General Clauses Act, 1897 provides that the repeal shall not affect the 
ll 
previous cperation of any enactment so repealed unless a different intention 
appears. 
The operation of all the provisions of th~ Prevention of Cor;uption 
Act would continue in so far as the offences that were committed when section 
5 (3) wru; in force.1 
The offences that were committed after the date of the 
repeal will not come under the provisions of section 6 (b) of the General Clauses 
Act. 
Sectiou 6(c) also preserves all legal proceedini~s and consequences 
of 
such proceedings as if the repealing Act had not been passed. [822 C, 823 E-F]. 
C 
Keshavan Madhava Menon v. State of Bon1bay, [1951] 2 SCR 
followed. 
4. Article 20( 1) of the Constitution deals with ex-post-facto lav,rs 
though 
that expressjon has not been used in the Article. 
Usually, a law prescribes a 
rule of conduct by which persons ought to be governed in respect of their 
civil rights. 
Certain penalties are also imposed under the criminal 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.