Report No. 60

6.28. The High Court observed:-

"Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that the said Notification issued under section 3 has since then been repealed and superseded by another Notification though in the new Notification also all the offences which are being investigated in the present case are included. Learned counsel, however, argues that the repeal of the Notification under section 3 which was referred to in the consent letter prevents the Special Police from investigating this case. We see no force in this argument. The principle of section 8 of the General Clause Act would apply here.1 The letter of consent referred to the Notification under section 3 which was in force when the consent letter was issued.

The repeal of the said Notification and the issue of a new one in supersession of it would be like the repeal and reenactment of a statute. Under section 8, the reference to the repealed enactment thereafter is to be construed as a reference to the re-enacted provisions. For the same reason, the reference in the consent letter would have to be construed as a reference to the Notification which has repealed the Notification referred to in the consent letter. It would be contrary to all principle to take the view that the State Government has to go on issuing new letters of consent merely because the Central Government chose to issue new Notification under section 3.

In fact, the State Government may refuse to issue a new letter of consent on the ground that it wanted the consent to be restricted to the offences mentioned in the Notification referred to in the consent letter. The superseding Notification may contain additional offences to the investigation of which the State Government may not wish the consent. In our opinion, therefore, the letter of consent continues to be valid, and it is so valid in the present case."

1. Emphasis supplied.