Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Sub-section (2) of the section specifically provides that the section applies also to all Bombay Acts made before the commencement of the Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904. It would therefore follow that section 17(1) is applicable to the present controversy. Under sub-section (1) of section 17 it was therefore sufficient for the purpose of indicating the application of a law to every person "for the time being executing the functions of an office" to mention the official title of the officer "at present executing the functions". Accordingly it was sufficient to mention the "Commissioner of Police" by his official title for purposes of section 6 of the Act as be was the functionary who was executing the functions referred to in the section at the time when the Act came into force. As section 17 of the Bombay General Clauses Act deals with the substitution of functionaries, it enabled that functionary to discharge the functions 'of the Commissioner of Police under section 6(1) of the Act who was "for the time being executing the functions" of that office. In other words, as it was the Commissioner of Police who had the authority to issue the special warrant under section 6(1) of the Act when it came into force, it would be permissible for the Assistant Commissioner of Police to be substituted for that functionary if it could be shown that it was he who was executing the functions of the Commissioner of Police, on the date of issue of the special warrant referred to, above i.e. on December 25, 1967.