GEORGE CHADAYAMMURI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) K. T. Koshi, J.

(2.) Though, for reasons which we shall presently state, after mature deliberation we have come to the conclusion that we should place these petitions for decision by a Full Bench of this Court, we think it necessary to point out that in our opinion there is no substance in the subsidiary point raised. The facts necessary for a proper understanding of that point are as follows:- Mention has already been made that the main act complained of in the case, namely the holding of a meeting of the Cochin Communist Party is one that took place on 26th March 1950. The Notification was admittedly in force when the meeting was held. But action thereunder was taken against the accused only on 2nd April 1950. That was the date when the first information report was registered or sent to the Court. Meanwhile on 30th March 1950 the Cochin Criminal Law Amendment Act 27 of 1124 was repealed by the Travancore Cochin Public Safety Measures Act (Act 5 of 1950). The latter Act is really a repealing and re-enacting measure. In fact it is a consolidated piece of legislation intended to replace several enactments passed by the Travancore and Cochin Legislatures. The argument that the Notification issued on 2nd January 1950, under the Cochin Criminal Law Amendment Act 27 of 1124 declaring among others the Cochin Communist Party an unlawful association was not in force when the case was registered is based on the ground that the repeal and saving section of the new Act did not keep alive or seek to continue in force a Notification issued under any of the repealed Acts but only orders made under such Acts. S.73(2), Travancore - Cochin Public Safety Measures Act which contains the relevant provision is in these terms:

(3.) It was pointed out on behalf of the petitioner that the Cochin Criminal Law Amendment Act referred both to Notifications and Orders and that in view thereof the omission of the term Notification in S.73(2) was significant. The petitioners contention is that with the enactment on 30th March 1950 or the Public Safety Measures Act the Notification of 2nd January 1950 had ceased to be in force and that the whole proceedings should therefore be quashed as founded on a defunct Notification. The learned Advocate General who appeared before us on behalf of the State urged several grounds to show that the contention was without substance. We however think it necessary to refer only to one of those grounds. According to the Advocate General the omission of the term Notification from S.73(2) is no moment. Under S.23, Travancore - Cochin Interpretation and General Clauses Act 1125, when an Act is repealed and re-enacted with or without modification, a notification issued under the repealed Act, shall so far as it is not inconsistent with the provisions re-enacted continue in force and be deemed to have been made under the provision so re-enacted unless and until it is superseded by any notification under the provisions so re-enacted. In view of S.23, Travancore - Cochin Interpretation and General Clauses Act, S.73(2) of Public Safety Measures Act, is perhaps a superfluity. We cannot however accede to the suggestion made on behalf of the petitioner that in view of S.73(2), the provision in the General Clauses Act (to use a short term) should not be invoked here. In our opinion the point mentioned by the Advocate General is sound and that is sufficient to meet the argument that the prosecution was started under a defunct Notification.