TILOKCHAND GOPALDAS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the parties.

(2.) The only question that arises for consideration in this application in revision is whether the case against the accused-applicant in respect of an alleged offence punishable u/S. 19, Punjab Act II of 1947 as extended to the Province of Ajmer-Merwara can now proceed, when the Act itself has died a natural death. The Act was extended to the Province of Ajmer-Merwara on 31-12-1947, and was passed on 20-3-1947 by the Governor of the Punjab u/S. 93, Govt. of India Act, 1935.

(3.) Admittedly, the Act died a natural death or 19-9-1949. There is nothing in the Notifications extending the Act to show that the Act was to continue to remain in force in the Province of Ajmer-Merwara even after its natural death. The Govt. Advocate has drawn my attention to S. 6, General Clauses Act, which lays down the effect of repeal of an act. In the present case, the extension of the Act though subsequently repealed could not have been repealed vide. In re S. 143, Constitution of India and Delhi Laws Act, (1912) etc., the Supreme Court Special Reference No. 1 of 1951 IN RE (ART 143,CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND DELHI LAWS ACT 1912) V/S UNION OF INDIA, 1951 AIR(SC) 332. A repeal any way cannot give more life to a temporary statute than its natural life. The position thus is that a temporary statute now stands automatically expired and it is desired by the prosecution to still prosecute the accused-applicant in respect of an alleged offence punishable under that temporary statute It has been held in S. Krishnan V/s. State of Madras, 1951 AIR(SC) 301 that the general rule in regard to a temporary statute is that in the absence of special provision to the contrary, proceedings which are being taken against a person under it will ipso facto terminate as soon as the statute expires.' An almost the same view appears to have been taken independently in Jugmandar Das V/s. State, 1951 AIR(All) 703.