General Clauses Act, 1897:

Object of-Held ls to shorten the language of Central Acts and to guard against slips and oversights by importing into every Act certain common form clauses-The General Clauses Act is a part of every Central Act and has to be read in such Act unless specifically excluded.

Section 6(b)-Object of-Held ls to save what has been previously done under the statute repealed-The result is that the pre-existing law continues to govern the things done before a particular date from which the repeal of such a pre-existing law takes effect.

Section 24-object of-Held, ls to preserve the continuity of the notifications, order, schemes, rules or by-laws made or issued under the repealed Act unless they are shown to be inconsistent with the provisions of the re-enacted statute.

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988:

Section 30(2)-Scope and ambit of-Held, In addition to Section 6 of the General Clauses Act the other provisions of the said Act are also equally applicable for the purposes of deciding the controversy with respect to the notification issued under the PC Act, 1947-Hence, notifications issued under PC Act, 1947, though not expressly saved by S.30 of 1988 Act, would still ensure or survive to govern any investigation done, or legal proceedings initiated under the 1988 Act.

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (since repealed):

Section 5-A (1)-Notifications issued under--Empowering and authorising inspectors of Police to conduct investigation--Validity of-Held, are saved and valid under S.30 of the PC Act, 1988-Such notifications are not inconsistent with the 1988 Act and are deemed to have been issued under the 1988 Act till specifically superseded or withdrawn or modified under the 1988 Act- -Hence, the investigation conducted by Inspectors of Police under the 1947 Act is proper, legal and valid.

Words and Phrases:

"Anything duly done or suffered hereunder "-Meaning of-In the context of S.6(b) of the General Clauses Act, 1897.

The respondent-accused was apprehended while accepting bribe by laying trap under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, investigations were conducted by the Inspectors of Police who had been authorised to investigate the offences by notifications issued under Section 5-A(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, FIRs against the respondent were registered based on these investigation reports after the coming into force of the 1988 Act.

High Court quashed the FIRs and the subsequent proceedings pending against the respondent on the grounds that the investigation had not been conducted by the officers authorised under Section 17(1) of the 1988 Act, that Section 30 of the 1988 Act only made Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 applicable and not Section 24 of the General Clauses Act and, therefore, the notifications issued under Section 5-A(1) of the repealed 1947 Act would not ensure or survive. Hence this appeal.

The following questions of law arose before the Court:

(1) Whether the notifications issued by the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred upon it under Section 5-A(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (since repealed) empowering and authorising Inspectors of Police to investigate the cases registered under the said Act are not saved under the saving provisions of the re-enacted Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?

(2) Whether the aforesaid notifications not being inconsistent with the provisions of the re-enacted Act continue to be in force and be deemed to have been issued under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 till aforesaid notifications are superseded or specifically withdrawn?