Skip to content

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

Meera was prosecuted under a Central Act for an offence committed in 2022. The Act provided a fine of up to Rs 50,000, and before her trial concluded, the Act was repealed without any savings clause, though a new Act re-enacted the same offence with a fine up to Rs 1,00,000. Under the General Clauses Act, 1897, which statement is correct?

She can still be punished under the repealed Act, within its original fine limit of Rs 50,000. The General Clauses Act saves penalties and proceedings relating to earlier offences despite repeal, and a higher penalty under the new Act cannot be applied retrospectively.

  1. AThe pending proceedings must be discontinued since the repealed Act ceases to exist
  2. BShe may be punished under the repealed Act, but the penalty cannot exceed that under the old law, as the repeal does not affect liability or proceedings in respect of offences committed earlierCorrect
  3. CShe may be punished with a fine up to Rs 1,00,000 under the new Act
  4. DShe is entirely absolved because no savings clause was provided

Explanation

Unless a different intention appears, repeal does not affect any penalty incurred or any investigation, legal proceeding or remedy in respect of an earlier offence, and such proceedings may continue as if the repealing Act had not been passed. Further, Article 20(1) of the Constitution bars a higher penalty than the one in force when the offence was committed. The absence of a savings clause therefore does not absolve her.

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