Case Note & Summary
The case involved an appeal against the conviction of the appellant under Section 6(1A) of the Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933, for possessing a wireless transmitter without a license. The appellant contended that Section 6(1A) had been repealed by the Repealing and Amending Act, 1952, and thus his conviction could not be sustained. The court examined the legislative history, noting that the 1949 Amendment Act had introduced Section 6(1A), which made possession of a wireless transmitter an offence. The 1952 Act repealed the 1949 Amendment but included a saving clause that did not apply to the case at hand. The court concluded that Section 6A of the General Clauses Act preserved the amendment despite the repeal, as it was an amendment to the text of the original Act. The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the lower courts.
Headnote
A) Statutory Interpretation - Repeal and Amendment - Survival of Amendment - Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933, Sections 3, 6, 6(1A) - The court held that the amendment made by the 1949 Act, which introduced Section 6(1A), continued to be in force despite its repeal by the 1952 Act, as per Section 6A of the General Clauses Act, 1897. The court reasoned that the repeal did not affect the continuance of the amendment made by the repealed enactment (Paras 1-20).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the amendment introduced by the Indian Wireless Telegraphy (Amendment) Act, 1949, survives the repeal by the Repealing and Amending Act, 1952.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the conviction and sentence under Section 6(1A) of the Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933, holding that the amendment continued to be in force despite its repeal.
Law Points
- Repeal of statute
- amendment survival
- possession without license
- wireless telegraphy
- General Clauses Act interpretation
Case Details
Criminal Appeal No. 185 of 1957
Syed Jafer Imam, K. Subba Rao
Mohan Behari Lat, Eluri Udayarathnam, N. S. Bindra, R. R. Dhebar
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against conviction under the Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act.
Remedy Sought
The appellant sought to overturn his conviction and sentence.
Filing Reason
The appellant contended that the relevant section under which he was convicted had been repealed.
Previous Decisions
The conviction was upheld by the First Additional Sessions Judge and the Punjab High Court.
Issues
Whether the amendment introduced by the Indian Wireless Telegraphy (Amendment) Act, 1949, survives the repeal by the Repealing and Amending Act, 1952.
Submissions/Arguments
The appellant argued that Section 6(1A) was repealed and thus his conviction could not be sustained.
The respondent contended that Section 6A of the General Clauses Act preserved the amendment despite the repeal.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the amendment made by the Indian Wireless Telegraphy (Amendment) Act, 1949, continued to be in force despite its repeal by the Repealing and Amending Act, 1952, as per Section 6A of the General Clauses Act, 1897.
Judgment Excerpts
The court held that the amendment made by the 1949 Act, which introduced Section 6(1A), continued to be in force despite its repeal by the 1952 Act.
The repeal did not affect the continuance of the amendment made by the enactment so repealed.
Procedural History
The appellant was convicted by the Magistrate, First Class, Delhi, under Section 6(1A) of the Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933. The conviction was upheld by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, and subsequently confirmed by the Punjab High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933: 3, 6, 6(1A)
- Indian Wireless Telegraphy (Amendment) Act, 1949: 5
- Repealing and Amending Act, 1952: 2, 4
- General Clauses Act, 1897: 6A
