Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Therefore, in our opinion, Section 26 has application provided the same act has been constituted an offence under more than one enactment. It makes no difference to the application of Section 26 that the procedure laid down in the two enactments with regard to the prosecution of the offender is different or even if different sentences are provided under the two enactments. The second ground on which the decision of the Punjab High Court was based was that the porvisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act 'pro tanto' repealed the provisions of the Indian Penal. Code with regard to the same offence. Undoubtedly, Section 26, General Clauses Act, can only have application if both the enactments are in force, and if we are satisfied that the subsequent Act of the Legislature has repealed either expressly or impliedly the earlier legislation, then the prosecution can only be under the subsequent enactment, and therefore we must proceed to examine the argument which found favour with the Punjab High Court that the Prevention of Corruption. Act has repealed the provisions of Section 409, Penal Code.

It will perhaps be advisable to bear in mind certain general principles with regard to an implied repeal by the Legislature of an earlier legislation by a subsequent legislation. The Prevention of Corruption Act does not expressly repeal the provisions of the Indian Penal Code and therefore the most that cam be said is that there is an implied repeal. The Court never looks with favour upon the suggestion that there is an implied repeal and the inclination of the Court will always be against the repeal of an earlier statute when the Legislature has not expressly done so. In this case, far from there being any express repeal, the Legislature by subsequently enacting Section 5(4) has made it clear what its intention was when it put this legislation, on the statute book, and as we have pointed out in the full bench decision, Section 5(4) was passed in order to rebut the view taken by the Punjab High Court that there was an implied repeal of Section 409, Penal Code, by the provisions of Act 2 of 1947.

The language used by the Legislature in Section 5 14), viz. "The provisions of this section shall be in addition: to, and not in derogation of, any other law for the time being in force, and nothing contained herein shall exempt any public servant from any proceeding which might apart from this section be instituted against him", clearly negatives any suggestion that the Legislature intended to repeal the provisions of the earlier statute, viz.. the Indian Penal Code. But what is urged by Mr. Walavalkar on the strength of the judgment of the H. C. is that we must assume an implied repeal by reason of the important procedural changes introduced in the subsequent legislation. We have already referred to what those important procedural changes are, and the contention is that the principle is well settled that when a subsequent legislation alters the procedure with regard to the prosecution of an offence or alters the punishment, the Court must presume that the Legislature intended to repeal the earlier statute.