The Principle, Rule, Doctrine of Implied Repeal II

Posted on by Rudrajyoti Nath Ray

Section 220, CrPC envisages situations when a person shall be tried for multiple offences at one trial. It now needs to be determined, if Section 220, CrPC can be applied to proceedings before a Special Court constituted under The Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957.  

It is apparent, on combined reading of Sections 4 and 5 of CrPC along with Section 30C of MMDR Act, procedure prescribed under Code shall be applicable to proceedings before Special Court unless MMDR Act provides anything contrary. These provisions incorporate, ‘principle of express repeal’. There is no express provision which excludes application of Section 220, CrPC. It needs to be examined, if MMDR Act has, by necessary implication, excluded application of Section 220, CrPC.

Section 30B of MMDR Act, by necessary implication, excludes application of Section 220, CrPC.  

A presumption against implied repeal is rebutted if provision(s) of subsequent Act are so inconsistent and repugnant with provision(s) of earlier statute, two provisions cannot stand together [Harshad Mehta v. State of Maharashtra, (2010) 8 SCC 257; Also see, State of Orissa v. M/s. M.A. Tulloch, AIR 1964 SC 1284; Syndicate Bank v. Prabha D. Naik, (2001) 4 SCC 713; State of M.P. v. Kedia Leather & Liqour Limited, (2003) 7 SCC 389; Lal Shah Baba Dargah Trust v. Magnum Developers, (2015) 17 SCC 65].

Municipal Council, Palai v. T.J. Joseph, AIR 1963 SC 1561 indicated, test applied for determination of repugnancy, under Article 254 of Indian Constitution, maybe applied to determine repugnancy in context of implied repeal as well. Justice Mudholkar, writing for a Three-Judge Bench, followed test laid down in Deep Chand v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1959) 2 SCR 8. It thus needs to be analysed, whether Section 30B of MMDR Act and Section 220, CrPC can be harmoniously construed.

Section 30B of MMDR Act and Section 220, CrPC can be harmoniously construed and such a construction furthers justice. Therefore, Section 30B cannot be held to impliedly repeal application of Section 220, CrPC to proceedings before a Special Court.

– Hon’ble Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, Pradeep S. Wodeyar v. State of Karnataka, [Criminal Appeal No. 1288 of 2021].

'The Last Word' seeks to include not only wise and witty sayings but also curiosities. These words are not of obligation but of delight. I am not alone in my refusal to believe, law is tedious. For all who escaped these percipient eyes, mea culpa maxima. History, after all, has many cunning passages, contrived corridors and issues.