Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. The next question is whether there was an implied repeal of Section 488 Cr. P. C. by the Act of 1956. Mr. Ghose has referred to two passages in Craies on Statute Law (6th Edition). At page 368, it is stated--"where the legislature has passed a new statute giving a new remedy, that remedy alone can be followed". But, a few lines later, Craies has said:

"and the rule could perhaps be more accurately laid down thus: In the case of an Act which creates a new jurisdiction a new procedure, new forms, or new remedies, the procedure, forms or remedies there prescribed, and no other, must be followed until altered by subsequent legislation''.

The learned author has also said:

"Where two Acts are inconsistent or repugnant the later will be read as having impliedly repealed the earlier. The court leans against implying a repeal; unless two Acts are so plainly repugnant to each other that effect cannot be given to both at the same time, a repeal will not be implied".

"To determine whether a later statute repeals by implication an earlier it is necessary to scrutinise the terms and consider the true meaning and effect of the earlier Act".

But, I shall show Mater that the 1956 Act does not introduce any special conditions or restrictions.

8. Maxwell, in his book on the Interpretation of Statutes, 1962 edition, has also used the expressions "repugnant to" and "inconsistent with" in the same sense. The learned author has said at page 153 as follows:

"And the language of every enactment must be construed as far as possible in accordance with the terms of every other statute which it does not m express terms modify or repeal. The law, therefore, will not allow the revocation or alteration of a statute by construction when the words may be capable of proper operation without it. But, it is impossible to construe absolute contradictions. Consequently, if the provisions of a later Act are so inconsistent with, or repugnant to, those of an earlier Act that the two cannot stand together, the earlier stands impliedly repealed by the later",

"The inconsistency or repugnancy between two statutes necessary to supplant or repeal the earlier one, must be more than a mere difference in their terms and provisions. There must be what is often called 'such a positive repugnancy between the provisions of the old and the new statutes that they cannot be reconciled and made stand together'. In other words, they must be absolutely repugnant or (sic) or irreconcilable. Since there is a presumption against an implied repeal, and since the court will seek to avoid such a repeal by any fair and reasonable construction the inconsistency must be clear, manifest, and irreconcilable".