Skip to content

CA Intermediate · Corporate and Other Laws · The General Clauses Act, 1897

A Central Act imposes a fine of Rs 5,000 for an offence. Later, the Act is repealed and re-enacted with modifications, and a new provision covers the same offence with a fine of Rs 10,000. Anuj committed the offence before repeal and was prosecuted after the re-enactment. Which position is correct under the General Clauses Act, 1897?

Anuj can be proceeded against for the offence committed before repeal, and the penalty cannot exceed that under the old law. Repeal does not affect liability already incurred under the General Clauses Act, and a heavier punishment cannot be imposed retrospectively, so the Rs 10,000 fine is not applicable.

  1. AHe is not liable, because repeal wipes out all earlier offences
  2. BHe is liable under the new Act at Rs 10,000, since proceedings began after re-enactment
  3. CHe may be punished for the offence under the repealed provision, as repeal does not affect liability incurred earlier, and the penalty cannot exceed that under the old lawCorrect
  4. DHe can be punished only if the new Act expressly saves the old offence

Explanation

Section 6 saves liability, penalty and proceedings in respect of offences committed under the repealed enactment unless a different intention appears. Further, Section 6 and Article 20(1) of the Constitution mean punishment cannot be greater than that under the law in force when the offence occurred. So the Rs 10,000 fine is wrong; he is dealt with under the old provision. Express saving is not needed.

Did you get it right without looking?

One question tells you little. A timed set on The General Clauses Act, 1897 shows your real accuracy, how long you take and where you lose marks.

Practise The General Clauses Act, 1897Free diagnostic mock

More The General Clauses Act, 1897 questions