Once an amendment is made in an original Act by an Amending Act and brought into force, the amendment remains in force even after the repeal of the Amending Act.

Headnote:
Negotiable Instruments Act - Repeal of Amending Act - Sections 138 to 142 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (sections 138 to 142), Banking, Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instruments Laws (Amendment) Act, 1988 (Act 66 of 1988), Repealing and Amending Act, 2001 (Act 30 of 2001), General Clauses Act, 1897 (section 6-A), Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933 (section 6(1-A))
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a practicing Advocate, filed a petition seeking a writ of mandamus to prevent illegal prosecution under sections 138 to 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 as amended by the Banking, Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instruments Laws (Amendment) Act, 1988.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the provisions of sections 138 to 142 of the Original Act were not repealed and remained operative under section 6-A of the Act. The court also emphasized the purpose of Repealing and Amending Acts and their effect on the original Acts.
Issues: The main issue was whether the amendments made by the Amending Act of 1988 in the Original Act of 1881 remained in force after the repeal of the Amending Act by the Repealing and Amending Act, 2001.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the legal principle that once an amendment is made in an original Act by an Amending Act and brought into force, the Amending Act serves its purpose and the amendment remains in force. The court also emphasized the legislative intent behind Repealing and Amending Acts.
Final Decision: The court rejected the petitioner's contention, held that the amendment in the Original Act of 1881 by the Amending Act of 1988 remained in force, and dismissed the petition.

JUDGMENT - C.K. THAKKAR, C.J.:---This petition is filed by the petitioner, a practising Advocate praying for a writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction ordering respondent No. 1, Union of India, other respondents as also courts of law everywhere in India, not to take cognizance of any case or proceeding under sections 138 to 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 as amended by the Banking, Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instruments Laws (Amendment) Act, 1988 (Act 66 of 1988).

2. The petitioner is a citizen of India. He is a lawyer by profession, practising in the High Court of Bombay as well as in other courts in Bombay since 1966. He has approached this Court in public interest litigation by filing this petition for seeking a direction from this Court which would prevent illegal prosecution and thus benefit general public all over India.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was enacted and came into force in December, 1881. It deals with negotiable instruments, such as Promissory Notes, Bills of Exchange, Cheques, etc. The said Act will hereinafter referred to as "the original Act". By the Banking, Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instruments Laws (Amendment) Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Amending Act"), certain amendments were made by Parliament in the Original Act. It, inter alia, inserted Chapter XVII ("Of Penalties in case of Dishonour of certain cheques for Insufficiency of Funds in the Accounts") contained in sections 138 to 142. The petitioner, however, states before this Court that by the Repealing and Amending Act, 2001 (Act 30 of 2001), published in the Gazette of India, on September 3, 2001, certain statutes were repealed as shown in the First Schedule. Several statutes were mentioned in the said Schedule along with the extent of repeal. At Serial No. 66, the Banking, Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instruments Laws (Amendment) Act, 1988, is referred to and it is stated that it is repealed as "the whole".

4. The argument of the petitioner before this Court is that since the Amending Act of 1988 is repealed as "the whole", the provisions of Chapter XVII i.e. sections 138 to 142 also stood repealed. Appropriate directions, therefore, are required to be issued to the respondents not to take cognizance of any such offence alleged to have been committed under the aforesaid sections.

5. We have heard Mr. Kurup, petitioner in person and Mr. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

6. In our opinion, there is misconception on the part of the petitioner in raising a contention that the provisions of sections 138 to 142 of the Original Act have been repealed and the case is governed by section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and sections 138 to 142 cannot remain operative. In our opinion, the relevant section applicable to the instant case is section 6-A of the Act and not section 6 thereof.

7. Section 6-A, which is relevant and material, reads thus:

"6-A. Repeal of Act making textual amendment in Act or Regulation.Where any Central Act or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act repeals any enactment by which the text of any Central Act or Regulation was amended by the express omission, insertion or substitution of any matter, then, unless a different intention appears, the repeal shall not affect the continuance of any such amendment made by the enactment so repealed and in operation at the time of such repeal."

(emphasis supplied)

It is clear that Parliament wanted to amend the Original Act of 1881 by inserting Chapter XVII in the Act. For that purpose, an Amending Act of 1988 had been enacted. As soon as the Amending Act of 1988 had been brought into force and implemented, the provisions of Chapter XVII (sections 138 to 142) stood inserted in the Original Act of 1881. Thus, from the date on which Amending Act had become law and brought into force, the provisio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document