STATE OF PUNJAB versus MOHAR SINGH

Citation: [1955] 1 S.C.R. 893 · Decided: 20-12-1954 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BIJAN KUMAR MUKHERJEA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 16 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

,. 
• 
• 
' ... 
J. 
. [MuKHERJEA, . VIVIAN. BosE, and . JAGA~ADHAnAS JJ.] 
General .Clauses Act (X of 1897), .s. 6(c)(d)(e)-Repeal of law-
Repeal and simultaneous . enactment-Temporary Law running out 
by efflux of time-Such /all! repealed before running out,. Effect of~ 
East Punjab Refugees (Registration ·of Land ·Claims) · Ordinance 
Vil of 1948, 's. 7-0ffence committed under exisiing /awe-Prosecu-
tion started after repeal-Validity-East Punjab Refugees (Registra-
tion of Land Claims) Act, 1948 (Punjab Act XII of 1948), s. 11-
'Anything done', Meaning of. 
· 
· 
The provisions 'of s. 6( c) ( d) and. ( e) .of the. General 'clauses Act, 
1897 '(same as s. 4 of the .Punjab General Clauses Act; 1898) rel~t­
ing to the consequences of the repeal of a law are. applicable · not 
only when an Act or Regulation is repealed simpliciter but also to 
a case of repeal and simultaneous enactment · re.:eriacting · all the 
provisions of the repealed law. 
On the repeal of a law the consequences mentioned in: s. 6(c)(d) 
and ( e) of the Act follow unless a different or contrary intention 
app~ars from the repealing statute. 
· 
· 
· 
· · 
For ascertaining. the -above contrary · intention one has to look 
to the provisions of the new enactment iri order to see whether 
the rights and liabilities under the repealed law have been· put an 
end to by the new enactment. It is an erroneous 
and incorrect 
approach to enquire if the new enactment has by its provisions 
positively kept alive . the . rights and liabilities under. the . repealed 
l~w. The absence of a saving clause in the new enactment preserv-
ing the rights and liabilities under the repealed 
law is neither 
material nor decisive on the question. 
· 
· .. Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, has no application 
to a temporary law . which automatically expires by effiux of time 
but the section would apply if the temporary law is repealed before 
it' so expires. The .Punjab Ordinance VII of 1948 . was :i temporary 
law and· the same having been repealed before it expired by efflux 
of time a prosecution for an offence committed under s. 7 of the 
Ordinance prior to its · repeal could be validly started even after 
the repeal. 
· 
· 
The term "anyt.hing done" occurring :in s. 11 of. .the 
Punjab 
Act XII of 1948 does not mean any act done by a person in con-
travention of the provisions of the. East Punjab Refugees (Regist-
ration· of Land Claims) Ordinance VII of 1948. 
The term "anything 
done" refers to official acts ·· done in the exercise . of the · powers 
conferred. by or under the Ordinance . 
. : Danmal, Parsh,otamdas v •. Babura'm ( ,(1935) I.L.R. 58 All. 495), 
~,~~ing17_is~e~.,,·_; ..... -·.· 
... ~·:<..: .... .-_:-·: (·> ·;.,_:. :·.:. 
_·l' __ r ·~1-~,_; · :~t.. 
i~---~:-: 
r I 
1954 --
The SilJU ef 
Pu,Yab 
v. 
Mohar SiTzgh. 
l_. 
894 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1955] 
CRIMINAL . APPELLATE 
. • JurusorcTmN : 
Criminal 
Appeal No. 61 of 1953. :·. 
Appeal under aiticie 134(1)(~)· of the Constitution. of 
India from the Judgment and 
Order dated the 
7th 
· August, 1952, of the High· Court of Judicature, for the 
State of Punjab at Simla in Criminal Revision No. 78. 
of 1952 arising .out of the case r,epoited by , t:l)e 
District 
Magistrate; Jullundur, with. his . No. · 301-M,D. Reader 
· dated the 9th .January, 1952, for revision of the Order 
dated ·the 20th July, 1951, of Magistrate 1st Class. 
S. M. 
Sikri, 
Advocate-General for 
the State of 
Punjab (Porus A. Mehta and P. G. Gokhale, with him) 
for the appellant. 
N. S. Bindra for the respondent. ' 
1954. October 20. The Judgment of the Court was 
· delivered · by 
MuKHERJEA J.-This appeal, which has come before 
us, on a certificate granted by the' High Court of the 
State of Punjab at Si'mla,, under article 134 (1) (c) of the 
Constitution, raises a short point· of law. On the 3rd 
of March, 1948, an Ordinance .(being Ordinance No. VII 
of 1948) was promulgated by the 
Governor of East 
Punjab, under section 88 of the Government of ·India 
. Act, 1935, making 
provisions 
for the 
registration of 
hnd claims of the East Punjab refugees. On the 17th 
March, 1948, the respondent, 
Mohar 
Singh, who pur-
ports to be a fefl)gee from West Pakistan, filed a claim 
in accordance. with the . provisions . of this Ordinance, 
stating therein; that he had lands measuring 104 kanals 
situated within the district of Mianwali in West Punjab.· 
. On the 1st of April, . 1948, this Ordinance was repealed 
and Act XII

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