BAMAN PRASAD MISHRA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a matter within the jurisdiction of a Single Judge under this Court's Rules and Orders, but Chouhan, J., who originally heard the case, felt that the matter involved in the case is of considerable importance and should be decided authoritatively. The matter has, therefore, been referred to the Division Bench to decide the following question of law : -

(2.) THE facts necessary for determination of the aforesaid question are that on 30 -10 -1987, the Lokayukta Establishment arranged a trap against the applicant, who was allegedly accepting a bribe of Rs. 200/ - from one Agrahijram Nagwanshi for releasing house building advance. During the trap, the applicant was apprehended and consequently a case under Section 5(l)(b) and 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the repealed Act) and Section 161, Indian Penal Code was registered. It appears that before the investigation of the aforesaid offences could be completed and prosecution launched, the said Act was repealed and replaced by the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the New Act) w.e.f. 9 -9 -1988. It appears that the respondent State Government was of the view that all further proceedings in relation to the offences aforesaid had to be continued under the Repealed Act and hence granted sanction for prosecution of the applicant under Section 5(l)(b) and 5(2) of the Repealed Act read with Section 161, Indian Penal Code, by order dated 8th November, 1990 (Document No. 1). The aforesaid sanction was granted under Section 6(l)(b) and (c) of the Repealed Act, now Section 19 of the New Act and its operative part reads as under : - .........[vernacular ommited text]...........

(3.) THE new Act is an Act to consolidate and amend the law relating to prevention of corruption and matters connected therewith. From the statement of objects and reasons, it is clear that the New Act aims at widening the scope of the definition of 'public servant' and enhancing penalty for the offences provided under the Old Act. The New Act incorporates all provisions of the repealed Act, including those of Sections 161 to 165 -Aof the Indian Penal Code and makes the New Act a complete Code on the law of corruption by public servants. Though there is some difference in penalty provided by the New Act, there is none, in so far as the offences are concerned. Under the circumstances, what was offence under the law before the commencement of the New Act is also the offence under the new law, though the provisions under which the accused person has to be charged are different. Section 161, I.P.C. (now repealed) is covered by Section 7 of the New Act; Section 162, I.P.C. (now repealed) by Section 8 of the New Act; Section 163, I.P.C. (now repealed) by Section 9 of the New Act; Section 165, I.P.C. (now repealed) by Section 11 of the New Act and Section 165A, I.P.C. (now repealed) by Section 12 of the New Act. It must, however, be mentioned that the penalties provided for some of these offences are more than provided under the repealed provision. Both the Repealed Acts and the New Act provide for prosecution after obtaining sanction of the State Government. The sanction was required under Section 6 of the Repealed Act which provision is now contained in Section 19 of the New Act. It would, therefore, appear that except for quantum of punishment in some cases, the new law covers almost the entire field covered by the Repealed Act. It is well settled that if a latter statute again describes an offence created by an earlier statute and imposes a different punishment or varies the procedure, the earlier statute is repealed by implication. It is equally well -settled that where a statute deals with a particular class of offences and a subsequent Act is passed, which deals with precisely the same offences and a different punishment is imposed by the latter Act, the legislature is intended to have declared that the new law will be substituted by the earlier law. The principle may have no application where offence described in the latter Act is not the same, as described in the earlier Act. It is, however, not necessary to go into the general principles, as in the instant case, the repeal is by a specific provision made in the New Act. Sections 30 and 31 being the provisions are reproduced hereinunder for ready reference : -