Criminal Appeal No 40 of 1979
From the Judgment and Order dated the 5th June 1978 of the Calcutta High Court in Criminal Revision No 133 of 1978
D Mukherjee Pradeep Ghosh and PK Mukherjee for the appellant
NC Talukdar and Amlan Ghosh for respondent Nos 1 and 2
GS Chatterjee for respondent No 3 State of Bengal
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SEN J
This appeal by special leave from a judgment of the Calcutta High Court dated June 5 1978 raises a question of some complexity
The question is as to the applicability of section 16A of the Act for short as inserted by the Prevention of Food Adulteration Amendment Act 1976 for short the Central Amendment Act with respect to prosecutions launched under s161 a read with s7 of the Act in the State of West Bengal between the period from April 29 1974 to April 1 1976
Such offences according to the law then in force ie the Act as amended by the Prevention of Adulteration of Food 908 Drugs and Cosmetics West Bengal Amendment Act 1973 for short the West Bengal Amendment Act were punishable with imprisonment for life and therefore triable by the Court of Sessions
It is common ground that the offence with which the respondents are charged is alleged to have been committed under s161a at a time when the Act stood amended in its application to the State of West Bengal by the provisions of the West Bengal Amendment Act
If the law continued to stand as it stood on the date of the offence which was so committed there would have been no difficulty because the maximum penalty would be imprisonment for life and fine and as such the offences would be exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions
But a change was brought about when Parliament enacted the Central Amendment Act which came into force on April 1 1976 by which the scheme of s16 of the Act providing for various punishments was materially altered so also the procedure for the trial of such offences
The effect of the Central Amendment Act was that the West Bengal Amendment Act stood impliedly repealed with effect from April 1 1976 and the question is whether the previous operation of the repealed West Bengal Amendment Act in respect of any liability incurred thereunder is preserved by s8 of the Bengal General Clauses Act 1899 which is pari materia with s6 of the both as to procedure for trial of such offences and the nature of punishment liable to be imposed
First as to facts
On August 16 1975 the appellant a Food Inspector of the Corporation of Calcutta visited the Chungwa Restaurant run by the respondents at Chittaranjan Avenue Calcutta and purchased a quantity of Hyacinth s ground white pepper compound with fried rice powder and sent the same to a Public Analyst for analysis
On such analysis the sample was found to be adulterated as it contained no rice powder but wheat powder
On September 24 1975 the appellant lodged a complaint against the respondents for having committed an offence punishable under s161a read with s7 of the Act in the Court of Senior Municipal Magistrate Calcutta
The gravamen of the charge was that the respondents had stored andor exposed for sale andor used Hyacinth s ground white pepper compound with fried rice powder for the purpose of manufacturing and preparing different articles of food which was adulterated and misbranded
On the date of the commission of the alleged offence ie on August 16 1975 the law in force in the State of West Bengal was 909 the Act as amended by the West Bengal Amendment Act which provided that such an offence would be punishable with imprisonment for life
The learned Magistrate following the decision of Anil Kumar Sen J in B Manna and Ors
vs The State of West Bengal1 sustained a preliminary objection raised on behalf of the Corporation and held that the case was triable by the Court of Sessions
Disagreeing with the view of Anil Kumar Sen J in B Manna s case supra a Division Bench of the High Court held that after the Central Amendment Act came into force on April 1 1976 all proceedings pending for trial of such offences punishable under s161a of the Act as amended by the West Bengal Amendment Act which had not been concluded would cease to be governed by the West Bengal Amendment Act and would come within the purview of the Act as amended by the Central Amendment Act and therefore such offences committed prior to such amendment are triable in accordance with the procedure prescribed by s16A of the Act as amended by the Central Amendment Act
It accordingly set aside the order of the learned Magistrate and directed him to proceed with the trial
Upon these facts three questions fall for consideration in the appeal viz 1 whether the Central Amendment Act impliedly repealed the West Bengal Amendment Act with effect from April 1 1976 and if so the effect of such repeal
2 Whether the High Court was justified in holding that the West Bengal Amendment Act shall be deemed to have been obliterated from the Statute Book for all intents and purposes inasmuch as the Central Amendment Act manifests an intention to the contrary so as to exclude the operation of s8 of the Bengal General Clauses Act 1899
And 3 Are the pending proceedings to be governed by the change of procedure brought about by s16A of the Act as introduced by the Central Amendment Act and further whether the continued operation of the repealed West Bengal Amendment Act is preserved with regard to the punishment to be imposed
For a proper appreciation of the points in controversy it is necessary to deal with the statutory changes brought about
First we may refer to the provisions of the Act as it stood on March 1 1972 the relevant provisions whereof were as follows 910 161 If any person a whether by himself or by any other person on his behalf imports into India or manufactures for sale or stores sells or distributes any article of food i which is adulterated or misbranded or the sale of which is prohibited by the Food Health authority in the interest of public health ii    He shall in addition to the penalty to which he may be liable under the provisions of s6 be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to six years and with fine which shall not be less than one thousand rupees
Provided that i if the offence is under sub cl
i of cl
a and is with respect to an article of food which is adulterated under sub cl
i of cl
i of s2 or misbranded under sub cl
k of cl
ix of that section or     the court may for any adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than six months or of fine of less than one thousand rupees or of both imprisonment for a term of less than six months and fine of less than one thousand rupees 201    2 No court inferior to that of a Presidency Magistrate or a Magistrate of the First Class shall try any offence under this Act     21
Notwithstanding anything contained in s32 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 it shall be lawful for any Presidency Magistrate or any Magistrate of the first class to pass any sentence authorized by this Act in excess of his powers under section 32 of the said Code
 911 On these provisions the maximum punishment which could be imposed for committing any offence under s161a was imprisonment for six years and fine
Such an offence not being under the Indian Penal Code 1860 was triable not exclusively by the Court of Sessions under the provisions of s292 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 read with Schedule II thereunder
To overcome the limit imposed by s32 of the Code on sentences which a Presidency Magistrate or a Magistrate of First Class could impose s21 of the Act was inserted
The result was that such offences become triable by a Presidency Magistrate or a Magistrate of the First Class
That was the law in force in the whole of India as on March 1 1972
On April 29 1974 the Prevention of Adulteration of Food Drugs and Cosmetics West Bengal Amendment Act 1973 enacted by the State Legislature of West Bengal having been assented to by the President became the law applicable to the State of West Bengal as from that date
It would appear that the State of West Bengal had taken a step forward with a view to make anti social offences such as adulteration of articles of food meant for human consumption or manufacture or sale of spurious drugs etc
which constituted a menace to the society and deserved a deterrent punishment to be punishable with imprisonment for life
S6 of that Act inserted the following amendment
In the      ii in section 16 a in sub sl for the words a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to six years and with fine which shall not be less than one thousand rupees the words life and shall also be liable to fine shall be substituted The following words were substituted in the proviso to sub s1 b in the proviso to sub s1 for the words the Court may for any adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than six months or fine of less than one thousand rupees or of both imprisonment for a term of less than six months and fine of less than 912 one thousand rupees the following words shall be substituted namely ii if the Court thinks that for any adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment a lesser sentence would serve the ends of justice the Court may impose a sentence which is less than a sentence of imprisonment for life It will be seen that the West Bengal Amendment Act brought about a radical change so far as the Act was concerned in its application to the State of West Bengal
The maximum punishment for an offence under s161a when committed in the State was punishment of imprisonment for life so that under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 such an offence became exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions and ceased to be triable either by a Presidency Magistrate or a Magistrate of the First Class
For this reason the provisions of s20 were also materially altered  201 All offences punishable under this Act shall be cognizable and non bailable
2 Any police officer not below the rank of a Sub Inspector of Police may arrest without warrant any person against whom a reasonable complaint has been made or credible information has been received of his having been concerned in any of the offences punishable under this Act
 The Act also introduced s19A with regard to burden of proof and it read  19A When any article intended for food is seized from any person in the reasonable belief that the same is adulterated or misbranded the burden of proving that such article intended for food is not adulterated or misbranded shall be on the person from whose possession such article intended for food was seized
 It was not long before Parliament stepped in to meet the growing menace of the anti social offence of adulteration of articles 913 of food meant for human consumption which was a threat to the national well being and it was felt that such offences must be ruthlessly dealt with
It was also felt that there should be a summary trial of these offences
The Prevention of Food Adulteration Amendment Act 1976 was accordingly brought into force with effect from April 1 1976
It not only created new offences but also enhanced the punishments provided
But at the same time it also provided for graded punishment for various types of offences
Incidentally it mollified the rigour of the law by providing for a reduced punishment for an offence punishable under s161a
We are however not concerned with other types of offences except the one punishable under s161a and for this the maximum punishment provided was for a term of three years instead of six years
In s16 of the Act for sub s1 the following sub section insofar as relevant was introduced  1 Subject to the provisions of sub s1A if any person a whether by himself or by any other person on his behalf imports into India or manufactures for sale or stores sells or distributes any article of food i which is adulterated within the meaning of sub clm of clia of s2 or misbranded within the meaning of cl
ix of that section or the sale of which is prohibited under any provision of this Act or any rule made thereunder or by an order of the Food Health Authority      he shall in addition to the penalty to which he may be liable under the provisions of s6 be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to three years and with fine which shall not be less than one thousand rupees
 A new proviso was inserted conferring power on the Court for any adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment to impose a reduced punishment for a term which shall not be less than three months but may extend to two years with fine which shall not be less than five hundred rupees
914 As regards the procedure for trial of such offences the Act introduced s16A which is important for our purposes and it reads  16A
Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 all offences under sub section 1 of section 16 shall be tried in a summary way by a Judicial Magistrate of the first class specially empowered in this behalf by the State Government or by a Metropolitan Magistrate and the provisions of sections 262 to 265 both inclusive of the said Code shall as far as may be apply to such trial  Provided that in the case of any conviction in a summary trial under this section it shall be lawful for the Magistrate to pass a sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year  Provided further that when at the commencement of or in the course of a summary trial under this section it appears to the Magistrate that the nature of the case is such that a sentence of imprisonment for a term exceeding one year may have to be passed or that it is for any other reason undesirable to try the case summarily the Magistrate shall after hearing the parties record an order to that effect and thereafter recall any witness who may have been examined and proceed to hear or rehear the case in the manner provided by the said Code
 There were some corresponding changes brought about in s20 of the Act
Sub s2 of s20 provides  2 No Court inferior to that of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the first class shall try any offence under this Act
 There is no doubt or difficulty as to the law applicable
article 254 of the Constitution makes provision firstly as to what would happen in the case of conflict between a Central and State law with regard to the subjects enumerated in the Concurrent List and secondly for resolving such conflict
article 2541 enunciates the normal rule that in the event of a conflict between a Union and a State law in the concurrent field the former prevails over the latter
915 Clause 1 lays down that if a State law relating to a Concurrent subject is repugnant  to a Union law relating to that subject then whether the Union law is prior or later in time the Union law will prevail and the State law shall to the extent of such repugnancy be void
To the general rule laid down in clause 1 clause 2 engrafts an exception viz that if the President assents to a State law which has been reserved for his consideration it will prevail notwithstanding its repugnancy to an earlier law of the Union both laws dealing with a Concurrent subject
In such a case the Central Act will give way to the State Act only to the extent of inconsistency between the two and no more
In short the result of obtaining the assent of the President to a State Act which is inconsistent with a previous Union law relating to a Concurrent subject would be that the State Act will prevail in that State and override the provisions of the Central Act in their applicability to that State only
The predominance of the State law may however be taken away if Parliament legislates under the Proviso to clause 2
The Proviso to Art2542 empowers the Union Parliament to repeal or amend a repugnant State law even though it has become valid by virtue of the President s assent
Parliament may repeal or amend the repugnant State law either directly or by itself enacting a law repugnant to the State law with respect to the same matter 
Even though the subsequent law made by Parliament does not expressly repeal a State law even then the State law will become void as soon as the subsequent law of Parliament creating repugnancy is made
A State law would be repugnant to the Union law when there is direct conflict between the two laws
Such repugnancy may also arise where both laws operate in the same field and the two cannot possibly stand together eg where both prescribe punishment for the same offence but the punishment differs in degree or kind or in the procedure prescribed
In all such cases the law made by Parliament shall prevail over the State law under Art2541
That being so when Parliament stepped in and enacted the Central Amendment Act it being a later law made by Parliament with respect to the same matter the West Bengal Amendment Act stood impliedly repealed
The case of Zaverbai Amaidas vs The State of Bombay1 illustrates the application of the Proviso to Art2542
The Essential Supplies Temporary Powers Act 1946 was enacted by the Central 916 Legislature s7 of which provided for penalties for contravention of orders made under s3 of the Act
The provision with regard to the penalties was that if any person contravenes any order made under s3 he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine or with both
The then Province of Bombay felt that the maximum punishment of three years imprisonment provided by s7 of the Act was not adequate for offences under the Act and with the object of enhancing the punishment provided therein enacted Act 36 of 1947
By s2 of that Act it was provided that notwithstanding anything contained in the Essential Supplies Temporary Powers Act 1946 whoever contravenes an order made under s3 of the Act shall be punishable for a term which may extend to seven years but shall not except for reasons to be recorded in writing be less than six months and shall also be liable to fine
The Bombay Act thus increased the sentence to imprisonment for seven years and also made it obligatory to impose a sentence of fine and further provided for a minimum sentence of six months and the Court was bound to impose a minimum sentence except for reasons to be recorded in writing
The Act having been reserved for the assent of the Governor General and received his assent under s1072 of the Government of India Act 1935 came into operation in the Province of Bombay notwithstanding the repugnancy
Subsequently the Essential Supplies Temporary Powers Act 1946 under went substantial alterations and was finally recast by the Essential Supplies Temporary Powers Amendment Act 1950
The Amendment made in 1950 substituted a new section in place of s7 of the Act
The scheme of the new section was that for purposes of punishment offences under the Act were grouped under three categories and the punishment to be imposed in the several categories were separately specified
S7 was thus a comprehensive Code covering the entire field of punishment for offences under the Act graded according to the commodity and character of the offence
It was held by this Court that the Bombay Act was impliedly repealed by s7 of the Essential Supplies Temporary Powers Amendment Act 1950
It is strenuously argued on behalf of the appellant that s16A of the Act is not retrospective in operation and that it does not deal with procedure alone but touches a substantive right
The submission is that in view of clsc d and e of sub s1 of s8 of the Bengal General Clauses Act 1899 which provide that if any law is repealed then unless a different intention appears the repeal shall not affect any liability incurred under any enactment so repealed or affect any 917 legal proceeding or remedy in respect of such liability penalty or punishment as aforesaid
It is said that there was a liability incurred by the commission of an offence punishable under s161a of the Act as amended by the West Bengal Amendment Act and s8 of the Bengal General Clauses Act  1899 preserved the continued operation of the repealed West Bengal Amendment Act for imposition of that punishment
The contention is that where rights and procedure are dealt with together by the repealing Act then intention of the legislature is that the old rights are still to be determined by the old procedure
In support of the contention reliance is placed on the decision of the Sargant J in re Hale s Patent1
We are afraid the contention cannot prevail
Just as a person accused of the commission of an offence has no right to trial by a particular court or to a particular procedure the prosecutor equally has no right to insist upon that the accused be subjected to an enhanced punishment under the repealed Act
The dictum of Sargant
J in re Hale s Patent is therefore not applicable
Whenever there is a repeal of an enactment the consequences laid down in s6 of the General Clauses Act though it has been specifically mentioned in the repealing Act or not will follow unless as the section itself says a different intention appears
In State of Punjab vs Mohar Singh1 this Court has elaborately dealt with the effect of repeal
In the case of a simple repeal there is scarcely any room for expression of a contrary opinion
But when the repeal is followed by fresh legislation on the same subject the Court would undoubtedly have to look to the provisions of the new Act but only for the purpose of determining whether they indicate a different intention
The line of inquiry would be not whether the new Act expressly keeps alive old rights and liabilities in the words of MukherjeeJ but whether it manifests an intention to destroy them The Court held that it cannot subscribe to the broad proposition that s6 of the General Clauses Act is ruled out when there is repeal of an enactment followed by fresh legislation
S 6 would be applicable in such cases also 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 Act and the mere absence of a saving clause is not by itself material
The Court therefore held that the provisions of s6 of the General Clauses Act will apply to a case 918 of repeal even if there is simultaneous enactment unless a contrary intention can be gathered from the new enactment
Of course the consequences laid down in s6 of the General Clauses Act will apply only when a statute or regulation having the force of a statute is actually repealed
It has no application when a statute which is of a temporary nature automatically expires by efflux of time
The principles laid down by the Court in Mohar Singh s case supra have consistently been followed in subsequent cases
The old doctrine of extinguishing or effacing the repealed law for all purposes and intents except for the acts past and closed has now given way to the principles enunciated by the Court in Mohar Singh s case supra
The question that falls for consideration in the appeal is whether a contrary intention appears from the provisions of the Central Amendment Act so as to exclude the applicability of s8 of the Bengal General Clauses Act
Anil Kumar SenJ in B Manna s case supra mentions several reasons why the Central Amendment Act was not really intended to be retrospective in operation so that it would not cover cases of offences committed prior to the enactment itself
In the first place he observes that the Central Amendment Act had not expressly repealed the West Bengal Amendment Act nor dealt with the Act or any of its provisions in any manner
It was enacted with reference and having regard to the provisions of the Act as it stood before the Central Amendment Act came into force
Even if the Central Amendment Act had not expressly repealed the West Bengal Amendment Act it would still be repealed by necessary implication under article 2541 as it conflicts with a later law with respect to the same matter enacted by Parliament
Secondly the learned Judge refers to the language of the statute itself
He observes that unlike many other statutory provisions creating similar offences and providing punishment therefor in the Act the material provisions are not in terms like any person guilty of an offence of manufacturing storing selling or distributing any article of food which is adulterated shall be punishable with 
On the other hand he points out that the terms of section 161a of the Act are if any person  manufactures for sale or stores or sells or distributes any article of food which is adulterated he shall 
The learned Judge is of the view that on the words used and on their terms the only consistent implication is that such manufacture storage sale or distribution must be after the enactment has come into force and not prior thereto
In our view nothing 919 really turns on the language of section 161a because the Central Amendment Act has not created a new offence thereby but dealt with the same offence as before
Lastly the learned Judge refers to the new offences created by the Central Amendment Act one of them being that under section 161b of the Act with regard to manufacturing for sale or storing or selling or distributing any adulterant which was not in the Act at any time before
Accordingly he holds that it is not possible to give retrospective effect to the other parts of the Act and observes that it could never have been the intention of the Legislature nor was it possible to give retrospective effect to the Act
According to him article 201 of the Constitution stands in the way of giving retrospective effect to section 161b of the Act and thus renders the act which was otherwise innocent at the time when it was done to be an offence by later enactment
We are not concerned with new offences created by the Central Amendment Act or with offences for which an enhanced punishment is provided for and therefore there is no question of article 201 of the Constitution being attracted
We are here concerned with the same offence namely an offence punishable under section 161a of the Act for which a reduced punishment is provided for
It is only retroactive criminal legislation that is prohibited under article 201
The prohibition contained in article 201 is that no person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of a law in force at the time of the commission of the act charged as an offence prohibits nor shall he be subjected to a penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of the commission of the offence
It is quite clear that insofar as the Central Amendment Act creates new offences or enhances punishment for a particular type of offence no person can be convicted by such ex post facto law nor can the enhanced punishment prescribed by the amendment be applicable
But insofar as the Central Amendment Act reduces the punishment for an offence punishable under section 161a of the Act there is no reason why the accused should not have the benefit of such reduced punishment
The rule of beneficial construction requires that even ex post facto law of such a type should be applied to mitigate the rigour of the law
The principle is based both on sound reason and common 920 sense
This finds support in the following passage from Craies on Statute Law 7th edn
at pp
387 88  A retrospective statute is different from an ex post facto statute
Every ex post facto law    said Chase J in the American case of Calder vs Bull1 must necessarily be retrospective but every retrospective law is not an ex post facto law
Every law that takes away or impairs rights vested agreeably to existing laws is retrospective and is generally unjust and may be oppressive  it is a good general rule that a law should have no retrospect but in cases in which the laws may justly and for the benefit of the community and also of individuals relate to a time antecedent to their commencement  as statutes of oblivion or of pardon
They are certainly retrospective and literally both concerning and after the facts committed
But I do not consider any law ex post facto within the prohibition that mollifies the rigour of the criminal law but only those that create or aggravate the crime or increase the punishment or change the rules of evidence for the purpose of conviction  
There is a great and apparent difference between making an unlawful act lawful and the making an innocent action criminal and punishing it as a crime
 To illustrate if Parliament were to re enact section 302 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 and provide that the punishment for an offence of murder shall be sentence for imprisonment for life instead of the present sentence of death or imprisonment for life then it cannot be that the Courts would still award a sentence of death even in pending cases
In Rattan Lal vs The State of Punjab2 the question that fell for consideration was whether an appellate court can extend the benefit of which had come into force after the accused had been convicted of a criminal offence
The court by majority of 2  1 answered the question in the affirmative
Subba Rao J who delivered a majority opinion concluded that in considering the question the rule of beneficial construction required that even ex post facto law of the type involved in that case should be applied to reduce the punishment
921 It 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
In Michell vs Brown1 Lord Cambell put the matter thus  It is well settled rule of construction that if a later statute again describes an offence created by a former statute and affixes a different punishment varying the procedure the earlier statute is repealed by the later statute See also Smith vs Benabo2 In Regina vs Youle3 Martin B said in the oft quoted passage  If a statute deals with a particular class of offences and a subsequent Act is passed which deals with precisely the same offences and a different punishment is imposed by the later Act I think that in effect the legislature has declared that the new Act shall be substituted for the earlier Act
 The rule is however subject to the limitation contained in article 201 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 ie 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 section 161a 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
In the result the appeal must fail and is dismissed
PBR Appeal dismissed


Summary:
For committing an offence under section 161a of the  as it stood on March 1 1972 the maximum punishment prescribed was imprisonment for six years and fine
Section 21 of the Act provided that such offences were triable by a Presidency Magistrate or Magistrate First Class
By the Prevention of Adulteration of Food Drugs and Cosmetics West Bengal Amendment Act 1973 enacted by the State Legislature of West Bengal the maximum punishment for an offence under this section had been enhanced to imprisonment for life as a result of which an offence committed under the section in the State of West Bengal became exclusively triable by a court of sessions
The Amendment Act received the assent of the President and came into force from April 29 1974
In 1976 Parliament amended the Food Adulteration Act and the amendment came into force with effect from April 1 1976
For offences punishable under section 161a the Amendment Act provided for a reduced punishment for a term of three years instead of six years as before
By the same Amendment Act section 16A was inserted in the Act providing that all offences under section 161 shall be tried in a summary way by a Judicial Magistrate First Class or by a Metropolitan Magistrate
On September 24 1975 the appellant lodged a complaint against the respondent for having committed an offence punishable under section 161a read with section 7 of the Act
On the date of the commission of the alleged offence the law in force in the State of West Bengal was the 1954 Act as amended by the West Bengal Amendment Act
Purporting to follow the decision of a single Judge of the Calcutta High Court in B Manna and Ors
vs State of West Bengal in which it was held that the Central Amendment Act was not intended to be retrospective in operation because it had not expressly repealed the West Bengal amendment nor dealt with the Act or any of its provisions in any manner the Magistrate held that the case was triable by the Court of Sessions
906 Disagreeing with the view of the single Judge a Division Bench of the High Court held that after the Central Amendment Act came into force on April 1 1976 all proceedings pending for trial of offences punishable under section 161a as amended by the West Bengal Act which had not been concluded would cease to be governed by the West Bengal Amendment Act and would come within the purview of the Central Act as amended by the Central Amendment Act and that therefore such offences committed prior to the amendment were triable in accordance with the procedure under section 16A as amended by the Central Amendment Act
On the question whether the previous operation of the repealed West Bengal Amendment Act in respect of any liability incurred thereunder is preserved by section 8 of the Bengal General Clauses Act 1899 which is in pari materia with section 6 of the both as to procedure for trial of such offences and the nature of punishment liable to be imposed
Dismissing the appeal  HELD By virtue of the proviso to article 254 2 of the Constitution Parliament may repeal or amend a repugnant State law either directly or by itself by enacting a law repugnant to the State law with respect to the same matter
Even though the subsequent law made by Parliament does not expressly repeal a State law the State law will become void under Article 254 1 if it conflicts with a later law made by Parliament creating repugnancy
Such repugnancy may arise where both laws operate in the same field and the two cannot possibly stand together As for example where both prescribe punishment for the same offence both the punishments differs in degree or kind or in the procedure prescribed
In all such cases the law made by Parliament shall prevail over the State law under article 2541
In the instant case when Parliament stepped in and enacted the Central Amendment Act which is a later law made by Parliament with respect to the same matter the West Bengal Amendment Act stood impliedly repealed with effect from April 1 1976
915 D G Zaverbhai Amaidas vs The State of Bombay 1955 1 SCR 799 applied
The applicability of section 6 of the is not ruled out when there is a repeal of an enactment followed by fresh legislation
But the Parliament having reenacted the law relating to the same offence under section 161a of the Act and provided for altered procedure and also provided a reduced sentence the accused must be tried according to the new procedure provided by section 16A of the Act and must also have the benefit of the reduced punishment
919 G H Dictum of Sargant J in Re Hale s Patent  held in applicable
In so far as the Central Amendment Act creates new offences or enhances punishment for a particular type of offence no person can be convicted by such ex post facto law nor can the enhanced punishment prescribed by amendment be applicable but insofar as it reduces the punishment for an offence punishable under section 161a of the Act there is no reason why the accused should not 907 have the benefit of such reduced punishment
The rule of beneficial construction requires that even ex post facto law of such a type should be applied to mitigate the rigour of the law
919 F H Craies on Statute Law 7th edn
at pp
387 388 referred to
It is a well settled rule of construction 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
Michell vs Brown   912 Smit vs Benabo and Regina vs Youle   315 316 referred to
The rule is however subject to the limitation contained in article 201 against ex post facto law providing for a greater punishment and has no application where the offence described in the later Act is not the same as in the earlier Act ie 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 section 161a of the Act and provided for a reduced punishment the accused must have the benefit of the reduced punishment
921 E F