1982 (12) TMI 186 - SUPREME COURT

Whether a "contrary intention" appears from the provisions of the Central Amendment Act so as to exclude the applicability of s.8 of the Bengal General Clauses Act?

Held that:- t is settled both on authority and principle that when a later statute again describes an offence created by an earlier statute and imposes a different punishment, or varies the procedure, the earlier statute is repealed by implication. The rule is however subject to the limitation contained in Art. 20(1) against ex post facto law providing for a greater punishment and has also no application where the offence described in the later Act is not the same as in the earlier Act i.e. when the essential ingredients of the two offences are different.

In the premises, the Central Amendment Act having dealt with the same offence as the one punishable under s. 16(1)(a) and provided for a reduced punishment, the accused must have the benefit of the reduced punishment. We wish to make it clear that anything that we have said shall not be construed as giving to the Central Amendment Act a retrospective operation insofar as it creates new offences or provides for an enhanced punishment. Appeal dismissed.