Summary
The Court restored an excise-duty-evasion prosecution discharged because Rule 56A had been omitted. The charged offence was evasion of duty, and omission of a procedural rule governing credit did not extinguish that charge or prevent the prosecution from proving it. The broader competing arguments about repeal, omission and retrospective saving were unnecessary to decide.
Issues
- Whether omission of Rule 56A justified quashing a charge of excise-duty evasion.
- Whether the wider repeal-and-saving questions needed determination.
Held
- Evasion of duty was the ingredient of the charged offence. Omission of the procedural credit rule did not affect that charge; the prosecution had to retain its opportunity to establish evasion. Quashing merely because Rule 56A had been omitted was therefore unjustified. (¶ 6)
- The matter was decided on this narrow ground without resolving all rival submissions concerning Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, Section 38A of the excise statute or the Finance Act 2001 saving provisions. No finding of guilt was made. (¶ 3–6)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court discharge order set aside and the trial court’s order restored.