Skip to content

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

Section 12 of a Central Act, passed in 2018, imposes a penalty for a specified offence. The Act is repealed in 2022 with no savings clause. Vikram committed the offence in 2020 and no proceedings had begun by the repeal. Which statement correctly reflects the General Clauses Act, 1897 position, ignoring constitutional limits on retrospective criminal law?

Vikram can still be prosecuted and punished. Under the General Clauses Act, repeal does not affect penalties incurred earlier or the right to start proceedings for them, which may continue as if the repealing Act had not been passed, unless a contrary intention appears.

  1. AVikram cannot be proceeded against because repeal wipes out all liabilities
  2. BVikram may still be prosecuted and punished as if the repealing Act had not been passed, unless a different intention appearsCorrect
  3. CHe may be prosecuted only if the new law re-enacts the offence
  4. DHe can be prosecuted only for a civil penalty, not imprisonment

Explanation

Repeal does not affect any penalty incurred or any investigation or proceeding in respect of it, and such proceedings may be instituted and continued as if the repealing Act had not been passed, unless a different intention appears. The idea that repeal erases liability is the key wrong view.

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