Skip to content

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

A Central Act was repealed in 2022 and re-enacted with modifications. Before repeal, Meera had committed an offence under the old Act, and proceedings had not yet started. The repealing Act contains no savings clause. Under the General Clauses Act, 1897, which statement is correct?

Meera can still be prosecuted under the old Act. The General Clauses Act provides that, unless a different intention appears, repeal does not affect liability or penalty already incurred, and proceedings may be started or continued as if the repealing Act had not been passed, even without an express savings clause.

  1. AMeera cannot be prosecuted because repeal wipes out the old Act as if it never existed
  2. BRepeal does not affect any liability or penalty incurred under the repealed Act, and the investigation or proceeding may be continued or instituted as if the repealing Act had not been passed, unless a different intention appearsCorrect
  3. CMeera can be prosecuted only under the new Act with the enhanced penalty
  4. DMeera can be prosecuted only if the repealing Act expressly says so

Explanation

The General Clauses Act saves the effect of repeal: unless a different intention appears, repeal does not affect any right, privilege, obligation, liability, penalty or punishment incurred under the repealed enactment, and legal proceedings may be instituted or continued. Option A states the common-law effect which the Act displaces; option D wrongly requires an express saving.

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