Effect of Repealing Acts on Amendments to Cr.P.C

Effect Of Repealing Act On The Provisions Of Principal Act

The Parliament has enacted The Repealing and Amending Act, 2015 (Act No. 17/2015) and The Repealing and Amending (Second) Act, 2015 (Act No. 19/2015) with effect from 13-5-2015 and 14-5-2015 respectively. Under both these Repealing Acts, several central enactments were repealed in whole. The prominent enactments which were repealed under the above Acts include the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2002, Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2008, Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2010, the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 etc., The Central Government has requested the Law Commission of India to make recommendations to repeal the obsolete laws which are no more required. Accordingly, the Law Commission of India in its report Nos. 250 and 251 has made recommendations to repeal certain laws which are no more useful. The main object to repeal the Acts is to avoid confusion in the minds of public at large as well as to understand the legislations easy.

2. Since last few days, an interesting argument is canvassed by the learned members at Bar that the amendments which were made to Code of Criminal Procedure under the Amendment Acts passed in the years 2008, 2010 stands repealed under the new Repealing Acts and thus it is not necessary to follow the provisions which were brought certain changes to the Code of Criminal Procedure such as Section 41-A Cr.P.C etc., It is advocated that in view of the Repealing Acts, the said amendments brought to the principal code stands repealed and deleted.

3. This said argument of the learned members of the bar cannot be countenanced for the reason that as per the Savings Clause in Section 4 of both Act Nos. 17/15 and 19/15, the changes which were brought to the Principal Act by virtue of the amended provisions are saved. Further more, as per Section 6(A) of General Clauses Act, 1897 what ever the Repeals brought under a Repealing Act would not have any impact on the Principal Act which was amended by virtue of any Amendment brought to the Principal Act.

4. Section 6(A) of General Clauses Act, 1897 reads thus:

“6A: Repeal of Act making textual amendment in Act or Regulation: Where any Central Act or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act repeals any enactment by which the text of any Central Act or Regulation was amended by the express omission, insertion or substitution of any matter, then, unless a different intention appears, the repeal shall not affect the continuance of any such amendment made by the enactment so repealed and in operation at the time of such repeal.

5. Section 4 of both the Repealing and Amendment Acts (17 and 19 of 2015) reads as under:

“The repeal by this Act of any enactment shall not affect any Act in which such enactment has been applied, incorporated or referred to;”

6. In Khuda Bux Vs. Manager, Caledonian Press, 1954 Law Suit(Cal) 60 (DB) Chakravarti C.J., explained as under:

"Such Acts have no legislative effect, but are designed for editorial revision, being intended only to excise dead matter from the statute book and to reduce its volume. Mostly, they expurgate amending Acts, because having imparted the amendments to the main Acts, those Acts have served their purpose and have no further reason for their existence. At times, inconsistencies are also removed by repealing and amending Acts. The only objects of such Acts which in England are called Statute Law Revision Acts, is legislative spring-clearing and they are not intended to make any change in the law. Even so, they are guarded by saving clauses drawn with elaborate care".

7. Now it is to be seen as to what would be the legal position of the amendment made in the Principal Act by the Amending Act which was subsequently repealed.

8. As per Maxwell and Halsburys Laws of England, such Repealing and Amending Acts strike out enactments which have become unnecessary. Having imparted the amendments to the main Acts, they have achieved their object. They have thereafter no reason for their existence. It is thus a legislative "spring-cleaning" to strike out "excise dead matter from the statute book in order to lighten the burden of ever increasing spate of legislation and to remove confusion from the public mind".

9. The observations of the High Court of Calcutta in Khuda Bux were quoted with approval by the Supreme Court in Jethanand Betab Vs. State of Delhi {1959 LawSuit(SC) 161}. The ratio laid down in Jethanand Betab directly covers these sort of cases. Thus, it is clear that once an amendment was made to Code of Criminal Procedure by the Amendment Acts of 2008 and 2010 and it had been brought into force, it has served its purpose and amended the Original Act. Its object was to implant necessary amendment in the Principal Act. Once such planting has been effected, the Amending Act having achieved its object, lost its efficacy. It was thereafter not necessary to continue the Amending Act in the statute book. Once the implant is fixed in the Principal Act, then a step is required to be taken by the legislature. If no action is taken, innumerable such Amending Acts continue to remain in statute books. A Special Purpose device is, therefore, used by the Legislature to repeal such Amending Acts, which would repeal only those Amending Acts. But such repeal does not affect Principal Acts which already stood amended.

10. Further, Section 4 of the Repealing and Amending Acts saves the operation of the amendments inserted in the Principal Act by the Acts Repealed. The amendments are clearly covered by the saving clause under Section 6-A of the General Clauses Act. Thus, on considering Section 6-A of the General Clauses Act read with Section 4 of the Repealing and Amending Acts, it is clear that the amendment in the Principal Act remains in operation and does not get abrogated. As the Amending Act has already been enacted and implemented by making necessary amendment and insertion in Principal Act, the Amending Act has lost its utility as its purpose has already been served. Hence, the above Amendment Acts are repealed as a whole.

11. In the light of these provisions, it can be safely said that by repealing any Act under which certain amendments are made to the Principal Act, there would be no impact on the provisions of the Principal Act in which the amendments are already carried out. Therefore, there is no change occurred to any of the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure Act, 1973 which were amended in the years 2008 and 2010 and the effect of Repealing Act on such amendments is nothing.

12. Therefore, the contention of the learned Advocates that the amendments which were made to Code of Criminal Procedure under the Amendment Acts passed in 2008, 2010 stands repealed under the new Repealing Acts cannot be upheld. The amendment made in the Principal Act of 1973 by the Amending Acts of 2008, 2010 remains in force and repeal of Amending Acts in 2015 has not affected the Amendments made in 2008 and 2010 to the Principal Act.

@@@@@