STATE OF PUNJAB versus HARNEK SINGH

Citation: [2002] 1 S.C.R. 1060 · Decided: 15-02-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.P. SETHI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
ST A TE OF PUNJAB 
v. 
HARNEK SINGH 
FEBRUARY 15, 2002 
B 
[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 
C guard against slips and oversights by importing into every Act certain common 
form clauses-The General Clauses Act is a part of every 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 
D done under the statute repealed-The result is that the pre-existing law 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 of such 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 
E repealed Act unless they are shown to he inconsistent with the provisions of 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 
F the General Clauses Act the other provisions of the 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 
G initiated under the 1988 Act. 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (since repealed): 
Section 5-A (/)-Notifications issued under--Empowering and 
authorising inspectors of Police to conduct investigation--Va/idity of-Held, 
H are saved and valid under S.30 of the PC Act, 1988-Such notifications are 
1060 
.. 
STA TE OF PUNJAB v. HARNEK SINGH 
1061 
not inconsistent with the 1988 Act and are deemed to have been issued under A 
the 1988 Act till specifically superseded or withdrawn or modified under the 
1988 Act- -Hence, the investigation conducted by Inspectors of Police under 
the 1947 Act is proper, legal and valid. 
Words and Phrases: 
"Anything duly done or suffered hereunder "-Meaning of-In the context 
of S.6(b) of the General Clauses Act, 1897. 
B 
The respondent-accused was apprehended while accepting bribe by 
laying trap under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, investigations were C 
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 D 
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 E 
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 F 
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 
G 
H 
1062 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2002 I I S.C.R. 
A 
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 of Central 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 
B construction and interpretation of Central Acts, and to guard against slips 
and oversights by importing into every Act certain common fo, m clauses,

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