What is the Applicability of Repealed CrPC in Pending Cases?

In a significant ruling, the Punjab & Haryana High Court addressed the applicability of the repealed Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) in a pending case involving Mandeep Singh, who sought to challenge his conviction in a cheque-bouncing case.

The Court had to determine whether the CrPC or its replacement, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Samhita (BNSS), applied to Singh’s petition, which was filed late and accompanied by a delay application.

Justice Anoop Chitkara’s decision provided clarity on how transitional provisions and the General Clauses Act, 1897, protect ongoing legal proceedings during legislative changes.

Background of the Case

In December 2023, Mandeep Singh, who was incarcerated after being convicted by a Sessions Court in a cheque-bouncing case, filed a revision petition at the Punjab & Haryana High Court under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to assess the correctness of his conviction. However, revision petitions must be filed within 90 days of the conviction. Singh’s petition was filed 38 days after this time limit. To address this, an application for ‘condonation of delay’ was filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, claiming that Singh’s imprisonment caused the delay.

The Court’s Dilemma

Justice Anoop Chitkara of the Punjab & Haryana High Court observed that technically, unless the delay was condoned, no criminal revision petition was pending before the Court. While he accepted the delay application in the early portion of the July 2 decision, he pointed out that the CrPC had been repealed and replaced with the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Samhita (BNSS) in the meantime.

This raised a critical question: If the BNSS only applies to cases arising after July 1 (according to Section 531), and the revision petition technically only came into existence on July 2, will it apply to Mandeep Singh’s case?

Legal References and Interpretation

To resolve this issue, Justice Chitkara referred to Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, which deals with the “Effect of repeal.” This section states that following a repeal, any “right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired” and any related “investigation, legal proceeding or remedy” will be unaffected, and the repealed law will apply “as if the repealing Act or Regulation had not been passed.”

Justice Chitkara then examined Section 531 of the BNSS, which specifies that pending appeals will be dealt with “as if this Sanhita had not come into force.”

Given that the CrPC was in effect when both the petition and the delay application were filed, he concluded that the CrPC would continue to apply to Mandeep Singh’s case.

Conclusion

Justice Chitkara’s decision underscores the importance of understanding the transitional provisions of new legislation and the protections provided under the General Clauses Act. By ensuring that the CrPC remained applicable to Singh’s case, the court upheld the principle that legal rights and proceedings initiated under a repealed law remain intact unless expressly stated otherwise by the new legislation. This decision provides clarity on how courts should handle cases during periods of legislative transition.

Legal Equity Research

Published on July 6,2024