GENERAL CLAUSES ACT [X OF 1897]

Section 6—

Earlier Division Bench of the High Court Division while quashing the proceedings of the Special Tribunal Case did not take into consideration the applicability of section 6 of the General Clauses Act to a case of a repealed statute. The learned Judges of the High Court Division while delivering earlier judgment did not take into consideration two leading decisions wherein it has been held that where an Act repeals an earlier Act, and a different intention appears, the repeal shall not affect any liability incurred or punishment incurred in respect of any offence committed against any enactment so repealed and hence the earlier judgment of the High Court Division was given “per incuriam”.

Abul Kalam Khan vs Reaz Morshed and another 5 BLC 528.

Section 6—

From the savings clause in section 29 (2)(3) of the Nari-o-Shishu Nirjatan (Bishes Bidhan) Am, 1995 there is nothing in the language from which it can be concluded that only the cases pending for trial before any Special Tribunal or pending investigation under the Cruelty to Women (Deterrent Punishment) Ordinance, 1983 in its restricted meaning have been saved. If such restricted interpretation is accepted then the accused persons who have committed offence under such repealed enactment will get premium without facing trial which could not be intention of the legislature. The repealing Act does not indicate any intention of destroying the liability or penalty incurred under the repealing Act. In the repealing Act, there is specific mention of only cases which were under investigation or under trial but it does not appear from the repealing Act that the offences, which were committed under the repealed Act which are covered by section 6(b)(c) and (d) of the General Clauses Act, would be deemed to have been destroyed. Section 6 of the General Clauses Act will be applicable unless the new legislation manifests an intention incompatible with or contrary to the provisions of the section. Such incompatibility would have to be ascertained from a consideration of all the relevant provisions of the new law.

Abul Kalam Khan vs Reaz Morshed and another 5 BLC 528.

Section 6—

An accused is to be tried in accordance with procedure prevailing on the day trial commenced and if the procedure is changed by the time trial commenced the accused cannot claim vested right to be tried in accordance with the provisions of the repealed procedure.

Sultan Ahmed and others vs State 1 BLC 158.

Disclaimer:

The information contains in this web-site is prepared for educational purpose. This site may be used by the students, faculties, independent learners and the learned advocates of all over the world. Researchers all over the world have the access to upload their writes up in this site. In consideration of the people’s participation in the Web Page, the individual, group, organization, business, spectator, or other, does hereby release and forever discharge the Lawyers & Jurists, and its officers, board, and employees, jointly and severally from any and all actions, causes of actions, claims and demands for, upon or by reason of any damage, loss or injury, which hereafter may be sustained by participating their work in the Web Page. This release extends and applies to, and also covers and includes, all unknown, unforeseen, unanticipated and unsuspected injuries, damages, loss and liability and the consequences thereof, as well as those now disclosed and known to exist.  The provisions of any state’s law providing substance that releases shall not extend to claims, demands, injuries, or damages which are known or unsuspected to exist at this time, to the person executing such release, are hereby expressly waived. However the Lawyers & Jurists makes no warranty expressed or implied or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product or process disclosed or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product process or service by trade name, trade mark, manufacturer or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation or favouring by the Lawyers & Jurists. The views and opinions of the authors expressed in the Web site do not necessarily state or reflect those of the Lawyers & Jurists. Above all, if there is any complaint drop by any independent user to the admin for any contents of this site, the Lawyers & Jurists would remove this immediately from its site.